Power of Review Cannot Be Invoked to Re-Argue Merits or Substitute Factual Findings Under Guise of Error Apparent.

The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition challenging the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 of United India Insurance Company Ltd., alleging that the 2022-23 promotion exercise was arbitrary and discriminatory

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 04.06.2026, finding no merit in the challenges to the APAR marking system, interview process, or reservation policies

The Petitioners subsequently filed this Review Petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record regarding the rejection of various prayers

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment dated 04.06.2026

2. Whether the court’s findings on the legality of the Promotion Policy (regarding APAR disclosure, interview committee power, and OBC training) warrant reconsideration under review jurisdiction

The court applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

It emphasized that a review is maintainable only for the discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record—not one requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning

The court reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise" or for "rehearing" a matter to substitute a view

Furthermore, it distinguished between "reservation in promotion" (held impermissible for OBCs in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) and "pre-promotion training," which is a valid welfare measure

The court found that the Petitioners were attempting to re-argue the merits of the Writ Petition rather than pointing out patent errors

Regarding APAR marks, the court noted Respondent No. 1 had already disclosed marks via a 2014 circular, a fact not denied by the Petitioners in a rejoinder

On the issue of the Interview Committee having knowledge of marks, the court held that mere knowledge does not prove manipulation and that the Petitioners offered only speculative arguments

Regarding the transfer of vacancies under Rule 14A(f), the court maintained its view that the Rule balances merit with seniority and operational requirements

The court also clarified that providing paid leave for training to OBC candidates does not constitute reservation in promotion and thus does not violate the Indra Sawhney precedent

Finally, the court rejected the claim that it erroneously addressed "discrimination," noting the Petitioners’ own pleadings had alleged personal bias and corruption

The Court affirmed that it cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment or allow a re-argument of the same issues under the guise of a review

No order as to costs was made