IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) RVW 2 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 In WPA 596 of 2025 Smti. Monalisa Biswas Vs. The Chief Secretary & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar. Judgment reserved on : 18.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The review application has been preferred against the original judgment and order dated 19.12.2025, passed by this Court in WPA 596 of 2025. 2. The grounds for review is that the petitioner while filing of the said writ application was not in a position to file certain documents 2 relating to the merit list, which goes to the root of the matter and would materially affect the finding and ultimate conclusion reached by the Court in the said judgment and order. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that after the passing of the impugned judgment/order dated 19.12.2025, the petitioner on 16.01.2026 got the information to an application made on 02.12.2025 under Right to Information Act, 2005, wherefrom it reflects that the petitioner stood on and above the private respondents in the Common Merit List of the post for “Mukhya Sevika”, whereas the appointment order was issued on the basis of category wise merit list and as such the said documents have direct relevancy for proper adjudication of the writ application. 4. It is this document which the petitioner prays be considered by the Court for review of the impugned judgment/order. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Binnu, learned counsel for the petitioner that ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC exists in this case. The ground is covered by the phrase “error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported at BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741, decided on January 10, 2005, (Paras 89, 90). “89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated 3 on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit”.” 6. On the said ground, the petitioner prays for review of the said judgment and order stating that grounds for review has been clearly made out and the said order dated 19.12.2025 be reviewed in the interest of justice, there being sufficient grounds (further documents) for review. 7. The Supreme Court in BCCI versus Netaji Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that a review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence or when there exists some error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same be necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason (as in the present case). 8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of notes of argument filed along with the judgments relied upon, it appears that the judgment dated 19.12.2025, of which review has been prayed for, is on the basis of the new documents now placed as per leave granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench. As such the 4 petitioner has made out a prima facie for considering the petitioner’s prayer for review. 9. In Malleeswari versus K. Suguna reported in 2025 INSC 1080 [2025 SCO.LR 9(3) [11] dated 9th September, 2025, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for a review at Para 14, 15 & 17. “14. In summing up precedents on the point, the judgment may not be understood as though we are putting an old spin on a classic. The court notes that there is no infirmity or illegality in entertaining the review petition; however, the approach to the error pointed out warrants a review of the precedents on the point. 15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from 8 appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of Court. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or 5 pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase „for any other sufficient reason‟ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.” 10. Thus, in view of the observations in this order, the petitioner has shown sufficient reasons and made out a case that the order dated 19.12.2025 is reviewable. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed CAN 1 of 2026 annexing the said document on the basis of which review has been sought for. 12. It is stated that the review application has been preferred as per leave granted by the Division Bench vide it order dated 03.02.2026, passed in MAT 8 of 2026. 13. Para 14, 17 and 25 of the judgment under review being relevant is reproduced herein:- 6 “14. Finally, by an Order dated 25.11.2025 vide an office order No. 1173 issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, the final seniority list was declared wherein the respondent no. 4 stood at no. 9, the respondent no. 5 stood at no. 10 and the petitioner herein at no. 11. The said ranking matched with office order/initial appointment letter dated 22.10.2009. 17. At this stage, the appointment letter vide office order No. 1353 dated 22.10.2009 becomes very relevant. In the said office order, the respondent no. 4 was placed at no. 3, the respondent no. 5 was placed at no. 5 and the petitioner herein was placed after them at no. 6 and as such, both the respondents no. 4 and 5 were placed at a higher rank than that of the petitioner. 25. But the impugned Final Order dated 25.11.2025 vide Office Order No. 1173 of the Directorate of Social Welfare shows the seniority as in the appointment letter and as such appears to be prima facie in accordance with law and thus, there are no materials on record to show that the impugned office order dated 25.11.2025 suffers from any illegality.” 14. The petitioner has placed documents/information received under a RTI application and submits that the office order no. 1353 dated 22nd October, 2009 regarding the appointment of the parties herein was on the basis of “category wise” merit:- 7 15. Petitioner now places the merit list cum mark sheet dated 23.08.2008 at page 45 to 51 to the CAN 1 of 2026 application, 8 wherein it appears that the petitioner Ms. Monalisa Biswas obtained 50.75 marks, respondent Pratima Rai obtained 49 marks and respondent Smt. Sulata Samaddar obtained 27.5 marks. 16. Thus the “category wise merit list” has caused, prime facie prejudice to the petitioner herein more so, as it appears at page 68/69 to the CAN 1 of 2026 that in the normal merit list the petitioner is placed at 8 and respondents at 9 and 10. 9 17. It thus appears that without publishing the final marks, the final “category wise” merit list was published causing severe prejudice to the petitioner, who secured the highest marks in the examination. The said conduct of the respondent administration is clearly an abuse of the process of law. 18. Thus the impugned order no. 1173 dated 25.11.2025 being not in accordance with law is quashed and set aside. 10 19. The respondent no. 1 to 3 shall issue/publish a fresh order/merit list, fixing seniority on the basis of the revised normal merit list, and not as per the category wise list within 60 days from the date of this order. 20. The impugned judgment dated 19.12.2025 is hereby reviewed on the basis of new documents filed, and the earlier judgment dated 19.12.2025 in WPA 596 of 2025 is recalled on review. 21. RVW 2 of 2026 along with WPA 596 of 2025, CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 are disposed of. 22. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 24. Photostat certified copy of this Order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)