1 CGHC010299272026 2026:CGHC:34732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 238 of 2026 Bharat Kumar Yadav S/o Gangaram Yadav Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Teacher (L.B.), Government Girls Middle School Narayanpur, Block Division Kunkuri, District Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. 3 - District Education O0cer Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. 4 - Block Education O0cer Kunkuri District Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge By circulation in chamber 07.08.2026 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.07 17:06:53 +0530 2 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in Chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 22.07.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No.5527/2026, whereby the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to the petitioner under law before the appropriate authority. 3. The case of the review petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher and was thereafter promoted to the post of Teacher (T Cadre) and posted at Government Girls Middle School, Narayanpur, District Jashpur. By order dated 09.07.2026, the Collector, Jashpur placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classi=cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said order was challenged by =ling WPS No.5527/2026. However, on 22.07.2026, the writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under law. Seeking review of the said order, it is contended that the petitioner had not instructed his counsel to withdraw the writ petition and that the suspension order 3 itself was passed by an incompetent authority, namely the Collector, though according to the petitioner, the appointing authority is the Joint Director, School Education Department. It is further contended that in view of the Government Circular dated 13.11.2019 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in WA No.531/2025, the Collector had no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition ought to have been decided on merits instead of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy. 4. I have considered the grounds urged in the review petition and carefully perused the order sought to be reviewed. 5. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn upon the request made on behalf of the petitioner with liberty to avail the remedy available under law. The order does not adjudicate the controversy on merits nor does it record any =nding regarding the competence of the authority which passed the suspension order. In review jurisdiction, this Court cannot reopen the proceedings merely because the petitioner now seeks adjudication of the merits of the writ petition. 4 6. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that he had not instructed his counsel to withdraw the writ petition. Such a plea raises a disputed question of fact and cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record so as to attract the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order under review records the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and in absence of any patent error apparent from the record, the correctness of such proceedings cannot be examined in review. 7. The further contention that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension also does not furnish any ground for review. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the Government Circular dated 13.11.2019 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in WA No.531/2025. However, the said judgment was rendered in the context of a Principal, a Class-II Gazetted O0cer, and the observations made therein were with reference to the statutory provisions governing the service conditions applicable to such category of employees. The petitioner herein is serving as a Teacher, a Class-III employee, whose service conditions are governed by a 5 diCerent statutory framework. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgment in WA No.531/2025 is clearly misconceived and does not advance the case of the petitioner. 8. Even otherwise, the question whether the Collector was competent to pass the suspension order is a matter requiring adjudication on merits on the basis of the applicable statutory provisions. Such an issue cannot be examined in review proceedings when the original writ petition itself stood dismissed as withdrawn without adjudication. Entertaining such a contention would virtually amount to rehearing the writ petition, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. 9. Upon a bare perusal of the order passed in the writ petition, which is sought to be reviewed, it is evident that in the said matter Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner and withdrew the writ petition, whereas the present review petition has been =led by Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate and his associates. Such practice is impermissible and cannot be allowed. 10. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and is con=ned only to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. 6 11. Consequently, =nding no ground warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib