1 CGHC010050732026 2026:CGHC:37736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 78 of 2026 Order Reserved on 31.07.2026 Order Delivered on 24.08.2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Public Education, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - Omkar Prasad Verma S/o Late Shri Beni Ram Verma, Aged About 51 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Mungesar, Block Arang, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shiv Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 50 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Bartori, Block Tilda, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 3 - Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Nand Ram Verma Aged About 43 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Naveen Primary School, Dhaneli, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Shail Patel W/o Shri Bhuwan Lal Patel Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Boys Primary School, Naradaha, Block Arang, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Karuna Verma W/o Shri Jaisingh Verma Aged About 50 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Bahanakadi, Block Arang, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Seema Yeole W/o Anil Yeole, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Sarkhi, Block Abhanpur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Verma W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Verma Aged About 41 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Bhatgaon, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Heera Verma W/o Shri Bhola Prasad Verma, Aged About 44 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Naveen Primary School, Neora, Block Tilda, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Shalini Shukla W/o Shri Awadhesh Shukla Aged About 45 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Urdu Handi Para Nayapara, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Sapna Dewangan W/o Shri Madhaw Singh Dewangan, Aged About 43 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary 3 School, Guru Ghasidas Nagar Raipur, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Smt. Lily Kujur W/o Shri Tarcitius Kujur, Aged About 53 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Akoldih Khapri, Block Arang, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Pravit Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Babu Lal Tandon, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Chhatoud, Block Tilda, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Madhusudan Tandon, S/o Late Shri Latel Das Tandon, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Gourkheda, Block Tilda, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt. Manisha Sahu W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Sahu, Aged About 49 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Dunda, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt. Vimla Sajiwan W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Sajiwan, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Thakurdev Para Uparwara, Block Abhanpur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 16 - Smt. Manisha Gauraha W/o Shri Ashish Gauraha, Aged About 46 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Dharampura, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 17 - Smt. Meera Shriwas W/o Shri Rajesh Shriwas, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Kantathih, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 18 - Deenanath Sahu S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Doma, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 19 - Smt. Sarita Sahu, W/o Shri Deenanath Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Sejbahar, Block Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 20 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dev Lal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Julum, Block Abhanpur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 21 - Suresh Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Mant Ram Verma, Aged About 49 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Naveen Primary School, Sarkhi, Block Abhanpur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 22 - Omprakash Sahu, S/o Shri Nathu Ram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Paragaon, Block Arang, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants/State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Non-Applicants :- Mr. Anup Majumdar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate For Intervenor :- Mr. Prabhu Lal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 5 1. By way of the instant review petition, the applicants/State have sought review of the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2263 of 2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the non-applicants/petitioners was allowed and the respondent authorities were directed to rectify the impugned gradation list and prepare a fresh gradation list in accordance with law by placing the petitioners at their proper place in the gradation list. This Court had further directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to seniority on the post of Headmaster, Primary School, with effect from 10.12.2010, i.e. the date of their initial appointment, with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicants/State have essentially sought review of the aforesaid order on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, the distinction between transfer made on administrative grounds and transfer made on the employee's own request was not properly appreciated and the executive instructions governing seniority upon such transfer, particularly the communication dated 29.01.2009 and the circular dated 24.08.1976, were not appropriately considered. The applicants contend that an employee transferred on his own request to another district/cadre cannot claim the 6 seniority which he had acquired in the parent district and has to be placed below the employees already borne on the cadre of the transferred district. 3. Facts of the case are that the non-applicants/petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Headmaster, Primary School, on 10.12.2010 and were posted in the then Education District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, which was part of the erstwhile Revenue District Raipur. Subsequently, Balodabazar- Bhatapara was constituted as a separate district. The petitioners thereafter came to be transferred to District Raipur in the year 2017 on their own request and at their own expenses. A dispute thereafter arose with regard to determination of their seniority. Initially, their seniority was reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. However, subsequently, while preparing the gradation list, their seniority was reckoned from the date of their transfer/joining in District Raipur, resulting in their placement below certain employees already working in District Raipur and consequently affecting their eligibility and chances of promotion to the post of Headmaster, Middle School. The petitioners challenged the gradation list dated 16.03.2021 before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.2263 of 2021. The State opposed the writ petition principally on the ground that the petitioners had sought 7 transfer on their own request and, therefore, after transfer to another district, they could not claim seniority over employees already working in the transferred district. This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the applicable principles governing seniority, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 12.02.2025 and directed the authorities to prepare a fresh gradation list by reckoning the seniority of the petitioners from their respective dates of initial appointment, i.e. 10.12.2010. The State has now preferred the present review petition seeking reconsideration of the aforesaid conclusion. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/State submits that the review is confined to a narrow ground, namely, that the direction relating to seniority contained in the order dated 12.02.2025 proceeds on a proposition contrary to settled service jurisprudence and that the governing authority, though cited at the Bar and referred to in the order, has not been dealt with in its proper perspective. It is submitted that a judgment rendered in ignorance of applicable law constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and is amenable to review. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 2 SCC 338. Learned 8 counsel further submits that the distinction between a transfer made in the exigencies of public service and a transfer made at the employee's own request is recognised by settled service jurisprudence and does not depend upon the existence of any particular departmental communication. Reliance has been placed upon K.P. Sudhakaran & Another v. State of Kerala & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 386, wherein it has been held that an employee transferred at his own request has to forego his seniority till the date of transfer and is to be placed at the bottom below the juniormost employee in the category in the new cadre or department. It is further submitted that the aforesaid principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare v. K.C. Devaki, 2025 INSC 389, decided on 25.03.2025, wherein the purpose, procedure and consequences of administrative transfer and request transfer have been held to be distinct. According to learned counsel, a request transferee enters the transferred unit subject to the existing claims and status of the employees already serving there and, therefore, has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. 5. Learned counsel submits that the same principle has been recognised by this Court in Smt. Reeta Singh v. State of 9 Chhattisgarh, W.A. No.475 of 2015, decided on 29.10.2015, wherein it has been held that upon request transfer, loss of seniority follows at the transferred place of posting, though the past service may be counted for eligibility and qualifying service. It is further submitted that the judgment in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 2 SCC 119, relied upon by the petitioners, does not advance their case on the question of seniority and, in fact, proceeds on the basis that a transferee may be placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Learned counsel for the applicants candidly submits that the communication dated 29.01.2009 is not being projected as a statutory rule. According to the State, the said communication is only clarificatory in nature and records at the departmental level the legal consequence flowing from the general law relating to request transfer. It is submitted that the consequence does not originate merely from the said communication but flows from the law declared in K.P. Sudhakaran and reiterated subsequently in K.C. Devaki. Learned counsel submits that merely because there was no specific written stipulation in the transfer order informing the petitioners that their seniority would be affected, the petitioners cannot claim a right contrary to the governing service law. It is submitted that silence of the Rules does not 10 confer a positive right upon an employee to carry his seniority from one district cadre into another. Seniority is governed by law and not by election, contract or expectation. 6. Learned counsel has further relied upon Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, to contend that where statutory rules are silent on a particular aspect, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules by issuing administrative instructions, provided such instructions are not inconsistent with the statutory Rules. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the order dated 12.02.2025 be reviewed and modified to the extent that the seniority of the petitioners in the district cadre of Raipur be reckoned from the date of their joining upon transfer on their own request and not from the date of their initial appointment. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicants/petitioners opposes the review petition and submits that no ground for review is made out. It is contended that the issue now sought to be raised by the State was the very issue which was argued before this Court while hearing the writ petition and was duly considered while passing the order dated 12.02.2025. The present review petition, therefore, is nothing but an attempt to seek rehearing of the 11 writ petition on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed on 10.12.2010 on the post of Headmaster, Primary School, and were subsequently transferred to District Raipur. The post of Headmaster, Middle School, being a divisional- level promotional post, the seniority of the feeder cadre has to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules at the divisional level. It is submitted that Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Services General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961 governs seniority and does not provide that an employee's previously acquired seniority would stand forfeited merely because he is transferred from one district to another. Learned counsel submits that the State itself relied upon executive instructions and the circular dated 24.08.1976 before this Court. The said circular, however, cannot override or curtail a statutory right of seniority flowing from Rule 12 of the Rules of 1961. It is submitted that the State had itself admitted in its additional affidavit that executive instructions cannot supersede statutory Rules. 8. It is further submitted that the communication dated 29.01.2009 has no application to the controversy involved in the present case and, in any event, is merely an executive communication and not a statutory provision. According to 12 learned counsel, no provision has been pointed out by the State under which seniority already acquired by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment could be wiped out merely on account of their transfer. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners' transfer orders did not contain any condition or stipulation that their seniority would be reckoned afresh from the date of their transfer. The petitioners had already rendered substantial service in the feeder cadre from 10.12.2010. Therefore, for the purpose of promotion, their eligibility and seniority could not subsequently be altered to their prejudice by preparing a gradation list in the year 2021. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment in K.P. Sudhakaran is distinguishable on facts and in law, particularly because the service conditions applicable therein contained provisions concerning seniority upon inter-district transfer. In the present case, no such statutory provision has been shown by the State. It is also submitted that the subsequent judgment in K.C. Devaki, being dated 25.03.2025, was rendered after the order under review dated 12.02.2025 and, therefore, cannot furnish a ground for holding that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principle 13 governing review jurisdiction and submits that a review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. According to learned counsel, unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, or any other sufficient reason of analogous character, no review can be entertained. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the grounds raised in the review petition. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to keep in mind the limited scope of review jurisdiction. A review is not an appeal in disguise. The Court, while exercising review jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the entire matter merely because another view on the same facts and law is sought to be canvassed. Review may be warranted where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the relevant time, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 11. In the present case, the principal grievance of the applicants is that the distinction between an administrative transfer and a transfer on the employee's own request was not properly appreciated while deciding the writ petition and 14 that the executive instructions dated 29.01.2009 and 24.08.1976 were not given the effect which, according to the applicants, they deserved. The contention cannot be accepted as constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The question as to the effect of transfer on the seniority of the petitioners was directly in issue in the writ petition. The State had specifically pleaded that the petitioners had been transferred from Balodabazar-Bhatapara to Raipur on their own request and at their own expenses and, therefore, they could not claim seniority over employees already serving in District Raipur. The said contention was not only available to the State but was considered while deciding the writ petition. 12. In fact, the order under review specifically dealt with the contention regarding request transfer and considered the judgment relied upon by the State in K.P. Sudhakaran. The Court recorded its conclusion that mere transfer on one's own request would not, in the facts of the present case, render the petitioners junior to the employees already working in the transferred district. Thus, it cannot be said that the legal issue now raised by the State was wholly ignored. The applicants seek to contend that the aforesaid view is contrary to the law declared in K.P. Sudhakaran and subsequently reiterated in 15 K.C. Devaki. However, whether the principle laid down in those decisions is applicable to the facts and statutory framework governing the present case is essentially a matter of interpretation and appreciation of the applicable service rules. Such a contention, by itself, does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record. 13. So far as K.C. Devaki is concerned, the said judgment was admittedly rendered on 25.03.2025, whereas the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 12.02.2025. Therefore, the said judgment was not available when the order under review was passed. A subsequent judgment which, according to one party, supports a different interpretation of the applicable law cannot, in the facts of the present case, convert a concluded adjudication into an error apparent on the face of the record so as to permit a rehearing of the matter in review jurisdiction. 14. More importantly, the applicants' own case is that the communication dated 29.01.2009 is not a statutory rule but only a clarification issued by the departmental authority. The applicants have themselves submitted that the consequence of loss of seniority flows from the general law and not exclusively from the said communication. Once that is so, the question whether such general principle applies to the 16 present cadre, in the absence of an express statutory provision governing inter-district transfer, is a matter which would require examination of the service rules and their applicability. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in review jurisdiction merely to substitute one possible interpretation for the interpretation already adopted by the Court. 15. The respondents have specifically relied upon Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Services General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961 and have contended that the said Rule governs seniority and does not provide for forfeiture of previously earned seniority on account of inter-district transfer. They have further contended that an executive instruction cannot curtail or take away a statutory right. These submissions were part of the controversy which stood adjudicated in the writ petition. It is also significant that the State seeks to rely upon the principle that executive instructions can supplement statutory Rules where the Rules are silent. However, whether the executive instructions relied upon by the State are merely supplemental or operate to alter the substantive consequence of seniority is itself a question requiring adjudication on merits. The review jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for undertaking such a fresh adjudication. The 17 submission that, unless an employee loses seniority upon request transfer, employees may seek transfer to another district with the object of improving their chances of promotion, also does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. It is essentially an apprehension regarding the possible administrative consequences of the view taken by this Court. Such apprehension cannot furnish a ground for review of a judicial determination already made upon the basis of the applicable service conditions. 16. The respondents have also pointed out that the very apprehension raised by the State had been considered during the original proceedings and that the State is now seeking to re-argue the same issue. The principle that review cannot be used for rehearing the matter on merits is well settled. The respondents have, in this regard, relied upon Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406. This Court is also of the considered view that the applicants have not been able to demonstrate any patent, manifest or self-evident error in the order dated 12.02.2025 which could be corrected without undertaking a fresh examination of the merits of the controversy. The grounds raised in the review petition require the Court to reconsider the interpretation of the applicable service rules, the effect of the executive 18 instructions and the applicability of various judicial precedents. Such reconsideration falls outside the permissible scope of review. 17. It is equally well settled that a review cannot be entertained merely because the party seeks to rely upon another judgment or another interpretation of the same legal position. The Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment while exercising review jurisdiction. In the present case, the applicants were parties to the writ proceedings and had full opportunity to place all the relevant service rules, circulars and judgments before the Court. The grievance now raised does not disclose discovery of any new and important matter which was unavailable despite due diligence. Nor has any sufficient reason of analogous character been demonstrated. 18. The contention that the executive instructions dated 29.01.2009 and 24.08.1976 were not properly appreciated may, at the highest, furnish a ground for arguing that another view could have been taken. It does not establish an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be regarded as an error apparent. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to review the order dated 12.02.2025. The applicants essentially seek reconsideration of the merits of the 19 controversy already decided by this Court, which is beyond the permissible scope of review jurisdiction. 19. Consequently, the Review Petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 20. The order dated 12.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2263 of 2021, Omkar Prasad Verma & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, shall remain undisturbed. 21. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha