SOURABH KUMAR NIRWAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010356732026 2026:CGHC:46152
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 362 of 2026
1 - Sourabh Kumar Nirwan S/o Late Shri Lochan Kumar Nirman Aged
About 34 Years R/o Near Ojaswi Nursing Home, Rudri Road, Gokulpur,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Nava Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Development Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Development
Commissioner Office, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
4 - Superintending Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Raipur Circle,
District Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Gariyaband Division,
District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District-
Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant :- Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.

2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
02.11.2026
1. By way of the present Review Petition, the petitioner seeks review
and recall of the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in WPS No. 8934
of 2023, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on merits in the
absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Full
Bench decision in W.A. No. 236 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v.
Umesh Thakur .
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner's father, Late
Shri Lochan Kumar Nirwan, died in harness on 09.04.2017 while
serving in the Rural Engineering Service. The petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his
elder brother was employed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and his
sister was employed in the State Bank of India. Thereafter, WPS
No. 3352 of 2018 was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and the
subsequent WPS No. 8934 of 2023 was dismissed on merits by
order dated 05.02.2026 in the absence of the petitioner's counsel.
Hence, the present Review Petition seeking recall of the said
order and restoration of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under
review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, as
the writ petition was dismissed on merits in the absence of
petitioner's counsel. It is contended that the petitioner's brother,
employed as a Shiksha Karmi, is not a Government servant in

3
terms of the Government circular dated 08.01.2015, whereas his
sister is employed in the State Bank of India. Both siblings are
married and maintaining separate households. Relying upon the
applicable Government circulars and the decisions in various
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel prays for
recall of the order dated 05.02.2026 and restoration of the writ
petition.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the Review Petition
and submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error
apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order
under challenge. It is contended that the grounds raised in the
Review Petition seek reconsideration of the findings already
recorded by this Court and an adjudication of the petitioner's claim
on merits, which cannot be undertaken in exercise of the limited
review jurisdiction. Learned State counsel, therefore, prays for
dismissal of the Review Petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully
considered the grounds raised in the Review Petition, this Court
finds that the petitioner essentially seeks reconsideration of the
conclusions recorded in the order dated 05.02.2026. The principal
grounds urged by the petitioner relate to the interpretation and
applicability of the compassionate appointment policy, the
employment status of his siblings, and the effect of the
Government circular dated 08.01.2015. These grounds, in

4
substance, seek a fresh examination of the factual and legal
issues involved in the original writ petition.
6. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review
cannot be entertained merely because a party considers the order
erroneous or believes that another view ought to have been taken.
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident
and must not require elaborate reasoning, re-appreciation of facts
or a fresh examination of the legal position. The power of review
cannot be exercised as a substitute for an appeal or to provide a
litigant with an opportunity to reargue the matter on merits.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, including
Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai , (1987) 1 SCC 61; Meera
Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) , (1995) 1
SCC 170; Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and Others ,
(1996) 10 SCC 174; Lily Thomas v. Union of India , (2000) 6
SCC 224; Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and
Others , (2013) 2 SCC 1; and Sasi (D) through LRs. v.
Aravindakshan Nair and Others , (2017) 4 SCC 692 , has
reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be converted into
appellate jurisdiction and that a rehearing of the matter on merits
is impermissible in the absence of grounds recognised by law.
8. So far as the contention regarding the absence of learned counsel
for the petitioner on the date of hearing is concerned, the same,
by itself, does not establish an error apparent on the face of the

5
record. The order under review was passed on merits, and the
petitioner cannot seek its recall merely to obtain another
opportunity to advance submissions which, according to him,
could not be presented earlier. The petitioner is required to
establish a ground falling within the recognised parameters of
review jurisdiction, and the mere inability of counsel to appear
does not dispense with that requirement.
9. The contention that the employment of the petitioner's elder
brother as Shiksha Karmi and that of his sister in the State Bank
of India could not have been treated as a disqualification for
compassionate appointment involves examination of the relevant
policy provisions, the Government circulars and the factual
circumstances of the petitioner's family. Similarly, the assertion
that the petitioner's siblings are maintaining separate households
and are not financially supporting him or his mother would require
consideration of the relevant facts and their legal effect. These
issues, in the form presented, do not demonstrate a patent or self-
evident error in the order under review; rather, their consideration
would require a fresh examination of the merits of the original
dispute.
10. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, this Court finds that the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any material provision of
law or any fact, the omission of which constitutes an error
apparent on the face of the record, was inadvertently overlooked
while passing the order dated 05.02.2026. The grounds raised in

6
the Review Petition substantially seek reconsideration of the
findings recorded in the original writ petition and invite this Court
to adopt a different view on the applicability of the compassionate
appointment policy. Such an exercise would amount to a
rehearing of the matter on merits, which is beyond the permissible
scope of review jurisdiction.
11. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting review or
recall of the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in WPS No. 8934 of
2023. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.

sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha