1 2026:CGHC:2387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 10 of 2026 1 - Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Through Secretary, Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Ramkrishna Nagar, Kota, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Shyamlal Sinha Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, At Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Kota, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal And Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Tribal Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Collector Tribal Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Ms. Pallavi Das, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.1 : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.01.2026 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought recall/modification of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in WPS No.2041 of 2017 whereby the order passed by the Additional Collector, Tribal Department Raipur inflicted a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was quashed and liberty was reserved with the State REKHA SINGH 2 authorities to initiate a fresh inquiry, if so advised. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the order impugned was set aside only on the ground that the Additional Collector had no authority of law to inflict a penalty on the teachers according to the provisions of Non-Government Institutions Grant Rules, 2006 (for short’ the Rules of 2006’). He would further submit that the relevant document was not placed on record by the State. He would refer Annexure A/2 whereby the Additional Collector, Raipur was delegated with the power to deal with all matters/issues of Tribal Development Department including departmental inquiry, infliction of a penalty etc. He would contend that the Additional Collector exercised the power in accordance with the work distribution order dated 28.08.2015. He would pray to recall the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in WPS No.2041 of 2017. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pali. They would submit that the said document was not placed on record in the writ petition by the review petitioner. They would further submit that this issue is being raised for the first time in the review petition. They would contend that the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on the record. 5. The penalty was inflicted on a teacher contrary to the provisions of Rules of 2006. According to the Rules of 2006, the Additional Collector is not conferred with the power to inflict a penalty on teachers and therefore, the order impugned was set aside. The document Annexure A/2, circular dated 28.08.2015 was not placed on record by the review petitioner and 3 for the first time, this issue is being raised in the review petition. 6. There were no such pleadings in the reply and no document was placed on record to prove the same. 7. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 8. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 9. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) 4 (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 10. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error 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 apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 11. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 5 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and 6 decided.” 13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 14. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WPS No.2041 of 2017. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPS No.2041 of 2017] was decided by this Court on 01.08.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WPS No.2041 of 2017 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 15. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha