[2026:RJ-JP:11895] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 89/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5531/2025 Divya Kumar S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of H.no. 19, S.m. Vihar (Shiv Nagar), Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Jaipur. 3. The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur. 5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bharatpur. 6. The Medical Superintendent And Principal Medical Officer, Govt. Medical College And Hospital, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/03/2026 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking recalling/reviewing of order dated 20.09.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5531/2025, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed after hearing counsel for both the parties. [2026:RJ-JP:11895] (2 of 2) [WRW-89/2026] 2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner principally on the facts and grounds that certain documents which would reveal that the experience of work discharged on the post of COVID Health Assistant (CHA) was similar to Pharmacist were not considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition by judgment dated 20.09.2025. 3. On specific query, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents sought to be referred and placed on record by the petitioner along with this application were never part of the writ petition. 4. It is settled proposition of law that review petitions can be entertained only in the cases, where there is an error apparent on the face of record. When the documents on which the petitioner is relying in the instant review petition were never on record of the writ petition, there was no occasion for this Court to consider the same at the time of passing the judgment dated 20.09.2025. 5. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case for recalling or reviewing judgment dated 20.09.2025 and review petition filed by the petitioner along with interim applications is hereby dismissed being wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /105