1 CGHC010351822026 2026:CGHC:42851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 350 of 2026 Ankit Yadu S/o Late Sappu Yadu Aged About 33 Years Assistant Grade -2, Municipal Corporation Bhilai Charoda R/o Distruct Durg C G R/o House No. 260, Changorabhata Near Shitla Mandir Changorabhata Sunder Nagar P.S. D D Nagar Raipur C.G. 492013, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Urban Administration Department And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Secretary Govt. Of C G Urban Administration Department And Development Department Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh Raipur C.G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.10.01 16:42:32 +0530 2 4 - Commissoner Municipal Corporation Bhilai Charoda District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Risali, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge By circulation in chamber 01.10.2026 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 present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in WPS No. 6125/2026, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 31.07.2026 was dismissed. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade III in Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Subsequently, he was transferred from Municipal Corporation, Raipur to Municipal Corporation, Risali by order dated 30.09.2021 and thereafter from Municipal Corporation, Risali to Municipal Corporation, Charoda by order dated 18.09.2025. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2026, the 3 petitioner has again been transferred from Municipal Corporation, Charoda to Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has principally relied upon the judgment dated 16.07.2026 passed in WPS No. 5385/2026, Mohammad Wasim Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and submits that the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Court when the writ petition was decided. It is contended that, in view of the said judgment, the transfer of an employee from one Municipal Corporation to another can only be effected by way of deputation and that the impugned order being a simple transfer order is contrary to Sections 58(5) and 58(6) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 5. In Mohammad Wasim Khan (supra), the petitioner was transferred from Municipal Corporation, Raipur to Municipal Council, Akaltara by the order dated 11.07.2026. The Court, while considering the challenge based upon Sections 58(5) and 58(6) of the Act of 1956, noticed that the order impugned therein was a simple transfer order and was neither an order of deputation nor an order protecting lien, and consequently quashed the said order. 4 6. The facts of the present case are materially distinguishable. In the case at hand, the petitioner was initially appointed as AG-III in Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Subsequently, he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Risali on 30.09.2021, where he was found to be in excess of the sanctioned strength. Thereafter, he was again transferred to Municipal Corporation, Charoda on 18.09.2025, where he was also found to be surplus. Therefore, the petitioner himself submitted a representation seeking his transfer on the ground that surplus employees were posted at Charoda. Accordingly, considering the request made by the petitioner, he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, where posts were lying vacant. While deciding the writ petition, this Court had categorically observed that the petitioner could not claim posting at a particular place, i.e., Municipal Corporation, Raipur, merely because it was his place of choice or because he had earlier rendered his services there. Had the petitioner's request been considered and he had been posted at Municipal Corporation, Raipur, he would not have raised any objection alleging violation of the provisions of the Act, 1956. 7. It is settled that a review petition cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise. An error apparent on the face of the record 5 must be an error which is self-evident and does not require a process of elaborate reasoning or re-appreciation of the material already considered by the Court. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 9. In the present case, the grounds raised by the review petitioner essentially seek reconsideration of the very issues which were canvassed before this Court in the writ petition and were duly argued by Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate, along with Ms. Pooja Sinha and Ms. Shruti, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is the review petitioner herein. The order under review was passed after hearing the aforesaid learned counsel. However, in the present review petition, Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the review petitioner. There is no satisfactory explanation on record for the change in representation. The review petitioner has failed to establish any manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the order under review. 10. Be that as it may, the Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a 6 relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore I am not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 11. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re- appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in 7 (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 12. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 13. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib