1 CGHC010288912026 2026:CGHC:41642-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 235 of 2026 1 - Lokeshwar Porte S/o Late Shri Ramdhun Porte Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tilkdih, P.O. Podi, P.S. Ratanpur, Block And Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of School Education Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Director Office Of District Education Officer Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Block Education Officer Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title, as taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.26 14:42:38 +0530 2 Appeal No.524 of 2019, whereby the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.379 of 2019 was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Ramdhanu Porte, was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Mohda, Janpad Panchayat Kota, District Bilaspur. He died in harness on 04.11.2006. At the time of his death, the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2010. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 29.05.2018 on the ground that the application was submitted after a delay of about eight years, whereas, as per the applicable policy, the application was required to be submitted within six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No.379 of 2019 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 28.06.2019, dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.524 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2022. Hence, this review petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Appeal was dismissed on account of an incorrect contention made by learned State counsel that the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner for the first time on 20/22.11.2013. He submits that, in fact, the mother of the petitioner had already submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment after the death of the petitioner's father, but the said application was returned by the 3 department without being considered. He further submits that the petitioner subsequently obtained certain documents under the Right to Information Act, which according to him establish that an application for compassionate appointment had been submitted by his mother in the year 2008. It is contended that these documents were not available with the petitioner when the writ petition and writ appeal were pending. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the finding regarding delay of eight years was based on an incorrect factual position. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents, being in possession of the departmental record, did not bring the said application on record before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. It is, therefore, submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the order dated 03.01.2022 deserves to be reviewed and recalled. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 03.01.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner is seeking reappreciation of the facts and the same is not permissible in review jurisdiction. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the writ appeal was dismissed on the basis of an incorrect submission that the petitioner had filed the application for compassionate appointment for the first time in the year 2013, whereas his mother had already submitted an application in the year 2008. However, from the order dated 03.01.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.524 of 2019, it is apparent 4 that the contention regarding the application submitted by the petitioner's mother was duly noticed and considered by the Division Bench. The Division Bench also considered the fact that the petitioner had attained majority in the year 2010 and had thereafter submitted his application in the year 2013. 8. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP and Ors., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126, Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:- “10......................A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous." 9. Further, in the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was held as under: “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case." 10. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors., had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error 5 apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, it has also been held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 11. If the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present review petition are considered, the same would require reconsideration of the merits of the case and reappreciation of the facts already considered by the Division Bench. Thus, the petitioner, by filing the present review petition, seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of review, which is not permissible in law. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the order dated 03.01.2022 in exercise of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Judge Rukhsar