Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.19 19:16:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:48189-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 302 of 2025 1 - Shubham Sinha S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. G-6/2, High Court Colony, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ... Petitioner(s)
Facts
1 - The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur Through Its Registrar General, High Court Campus, Bodri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar General of The High Court of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur High Court Campus, Bodri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Mohd. Azhar S/o Imtiyaz Ahmed Aged About 25 Years Presently Posted As Stenographer In The Establishment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Raipur Road, Bodri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
said order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No.217 of 2025 was put to challenge before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.21911 of 2025 which was disposed of as withdrawn on 12.08.2025 with liberty to file review petition before this Court. Hence this Review Petition. 2. The only contention of review petitioner is that for 13 mistakes committed by the petitioner only 13 marks ought to have been deducted, however, in case of the petitioner, one additional marks i.e. 14 marks have been deducted and as such he has been awarded 86 marks instead of 87 marks. She would submit that as per advertisement, one mark was to be deducted for one mistake, however, contrary to prescribed rules in the present case for 13 mistakes 14 marks have been deducted. This aspect was not considered by the court. If proper evaluation were done following the terms of advertisement itself, the petitioner would have secured 87 marks and would have placed above the selected candidates i.e. respondents No.3&4 who also secured 87 marks, however both of them being younger than the petitioner, the petitioner would have been given seniority above them and have been selected for the post advertised. 3. This contention of petitioner has already been dealt and considered by us in paragraph 8 of our judgment dated 01.04.2025. The petitioner typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner and therefore, one additional mark was deducted by the department on this count alone. Apart from this, 13 other mistakes were committed by the 3 petitioner. Thus, total 14 marks were deducted and he was awarded only 86 marks whereas, the selected/private respondents have secured 87 marks. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for his selection to the said post. 4. The review petitioner, in the course of review application, is trying to re- hearing of the entire matter based on certain documents/circulars/orders etc. which were either not produced or were not relied upon at the time of hearing of original petition itself. It is well settled law that fresh grounds and plea cannot be permitted to be raised in the course of review jurisdiction. Moreover, a perusal of order passed in writ appeal would reflect that it has been passed with due appreciation and consideration of facts and as such it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of record. Review jurisdiction is not an Appeal in disguise. It does not permit re-hearing of matter on merits. 5. Re-appreciation of the facts of the case and passing of fresh order by exercising the review petition is not permissible under law. It is well settled principles of law that 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 the Code of Civil Procedure. 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. The jurisdiction under review does not permit an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake which is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. 4 6. Principle of law to entertain review petition is well settled in catena of decisions one of latest being 2012(7)SCC 200 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. Mawasi and Others). Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in cases of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary1, Lily Thomas, etc. vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerla State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others5. 7. Thus, applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, there is no ground available for review of the order dated 01.04.2025. Under the garb of the review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to converting the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 8. As a result and in view of the foregoing, this review application is
Arguments
4 - Shayna Kadri D/o Shri A.M. Kadri Presently Posted As Stenographer In The Establishment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Raipur Road, Bodri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 : : ... Respondent(s) Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate. Shri Ashish Surana and Shri Ankur Agrawal, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.09.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this court in Writ 2 Appeal No.217 of 2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.506 of 2024. The
Decision
dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice inder 1 2 3 4 5