Order : Muralee Krishna, J. The appellant in W.A.No.1755 of 2024 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by this Court in that writ appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the writ appeal, the issue relating to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA for the academic year 2010-11 alone was considered. The approval for the subsequent academic year 2011-12 was not considered in the appeal judgment. From the academic year 2011-12, the teacher-student ratio prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’ for short) is 1:35/40. Ext.R4(b) was produced along with the counter affidavit filed in the writ appeal, which was issued behind the back of the petitioner, and it was never communicated to her. Since the factum of availability of posts to accommodate the petitioner as per the 1:35/40 teacher- student ratio prescribed under the RTE Act for the academic years 2011-12 to 2015 - 16 was not considered, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that Ext.R4(b) order produced along with the counter affidavit filed in the writ appeal is one passed in continuation of Ext.P11 order produced along with the writ petition. In Ext.R4(b), it was found that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the Headmaster Teaching Post from 2014-15. The issue involved in the writ petition was pertaining to the approval of the petitioner for the academic year 2010-11. There was no necessity to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to get approval for the subsequent academic years till the period mentioned in Ext.R4(b). Since there was no challenge against Ext.R4(b) order in the writ appeal, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. 5. There was no necessity to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to get approval for the subsequent academic years till the period mentioned in Ext.R4(b). Since there was no challenge against Ext.R4(b) order in the writ appeal, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. 5. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned. 6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. (1) 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 of 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. (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 applies 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.” 8. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner; (i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1980) 2 SCC 167 ] the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. 10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus: “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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 . In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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”. (Underline supplied) 11. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. (Underline supplied) 11. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 12. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [2013 (8) SCC 320] the Apex Court laid down the following principles as far as a review petition is concerned. “16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, [ AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 , to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 13. In Sasi (Dead) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [ AIR 2017 SC 1432 ] the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. 14. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [ (2020) 2 SCC 677 ] the Apex Court by referring to Parsion Devi [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ] held thus: “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 decided”. 15. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus: “Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC , the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason.” 16. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212] , after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on the merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 17. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on the merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 17. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider the review petition filed by the petitioner herein. In fact, there is no whisper in the review petition that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The grievance of the petitioner at present is that the entitlement of the petitioner for approval as UPSA for the academic years from 2011-12 till the period mentioned in Ext.R4(b) order was not considered by this Court in the light of the teacher-student ratio prescribed under the RTE Act. While going through the pleadings in the writ petition and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, it can be seen that the issue considered was only pertaining to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA for the year 2010-11. The claim now raised by the petitioner in the review petition pertaining to her appointment for the subsequent years was not specifically pleaded or considered in the writ petition and consequently in the writ appeal. It appears that the petitioner is now attempting to improve her case by raising new contentions. It is trite that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise. No error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out in the impugned judgment. 18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to entertain this review petition.