1 CGHC010349962026 2026:CGHC:42676 Digitally signed by NAFR AMIT PATEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 274 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Office Of Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Dewangan S/o Vishnuprasad Dewangan Aged About 44 Years Primary Health Center Belgahna, Belgahna, Block Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vishnu Ram Yadav S/o Terasram Yadav Aged About 43 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Deverghata, Devarghat, Block Dhabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Harish Yadav S/o Shri Gulamram Yadav Aged About 35 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Kerakachar, Kerakachar, Block Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramsahay Sahu Aged About 40 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Khamhariya, Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jhul Singh Yadav S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Aged About 45 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Kenvachi, Kenvachi, Block Gourela, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 6 - Thaneshwar Kumar S/o Shri Vigyan Kumar Primary Health Center Belkhori Community Health Center Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 7 - Prabhuram Sahu S/o Keshav Ram Sahu Primary Health Centre, Kotmi, Community Health Centre Gourela, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 8 - Naresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Primary Health Centre, Bhilaibazaar, Community Health Centre Patari, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Parmeshwar Lal Sahu S/o Gitaram Sahu Primary Health Centre Laariparni, Community Health Centre Lailunga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 10 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Bouna Ram Primary Health Centre Katari Nagoi, Community Health Centre Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 3 (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board 01.10.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 in WPS No. 9724/2023 may be set aside or may be re-called.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction issued by this Court in para 10 of the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in WPC No. 9724/2023, to grant consequential benefits without unsettling the existing appointments, is contradictory and impossible to give lawful effect to without creation of additional posts, which lies beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to direct. As per the advertisement dated 08.06.2022, as amended on 08.05.2023, only 49 posts of Eye Assistant Officers were notified, pursuant to which the entire selection process has already been completed and, subsequently, the posting order dated 06.10.2023 was also issued. However, it is pertinent to mention here that, in 4 consequence of the issuance of the posting order dated 06.10.2023, the private respondents in the original petition have already joined their respective posts and, as such, as on the date of passing of the impugned order, no vacant post remains available. He further submits that as per the impugned order dated 15.04.2026, the exercise has to be undertaken without unsettling the appointments already made. In compliance with such direction, the only manner in which appropriate consequential benefits can be granted to the original petitioners, in the event they fall within the zone of consideration, is by creating additional/supernumerary posts over and above the 49 posts notified in the advertisement. This Court, vide its order dated 15.04.2026, has directed that consequential benefits be granted to the original petitioners if they are found within the zone of selection after granting 10 marks as bonus. However, the same can only be given effect to by creating additional posts, which is beyond the competence of this Court to direct and beyond the competence of the review petitioners to comply with in accordance with law. This Court, by way of the impugned order, has granted 10 marks as bonus to the original petitioners in compliance with Clause 15(c) of the advertisement dated 08.06.2022. However, this Court has overlooked the fact that all the original petitioners have already been awarded the maximum 15 marks for experience as per Clause 15(b), and as per Clause 15(a), their educational qualification is to be determined on the 5 basis of a total of 85 marks. In view of the above, if 10 bonus marks are also granted to the original petitioners, the total cumulative marks would amount to more than 100 marks, which is again impermissible. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased to review the order dated 15.04.2026, as it has become impossible for the respondent authorities to comply with the said order, particularly when the Court has directed the creation of posts by exercising excessive jurisdiction. It is, accordingly, prayed that the order dated 15.04.2026 be reviewed and the directions issued therein be recalled, in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 supported the order passed by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 5. 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 6 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 6. The grounds raised by the review petitioners 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. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine. 8. No order as to cost(s). SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL