Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked as an Appeal in Disguise for Rehearing on Merits

The petitioner filed a Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter 2 Rule 11 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008

He sought to modify an order dated 12.12.2025, which directed the respondents to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider his promotion to Computer Operator from the date the vacancy arose in 2017

The petitioner contended that he was entitled to promotion from 1993 and relied on a subsequent order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Principal Seat in Manoj Kumar Agrawal & Ors. v. State of M.P., which modified a similar direction to consider promotions from the actual date of eligibility

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the original order was correct based on the facts available at the time

1. Whether a subsequent order passed in a separate writ petition constitutes a valid ground for review or an "error apparent on the face of the record"

2. Whether the petitioner's request for modification of the promotion date meets the strict criteria for review jurisdiction under Article 226 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

The court primarily applied the principles of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It relied extensively on the precedent established in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, which stipulates that a review is maintainable only upon the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reasons

The rule dictates that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision through a rehearing on merits

The court reasoned that the scope of review is strictly limited and does not permit the appreciation of evidence or the adoption of a second view based on subsequent developments

The court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on a modification in a different case (Manoj Kumar Agrawal) would require a "rehearing on merits," which is impermissible in review proceedings

The court noted that for an error to be "apparent on the face of the record," it must be patent and not one that requires "fishing out and searching" through subsequent orders in unrelated petitions

Consequently, the court found that the original order dated 12.12.2025 did not suffer from any material error that undermined its soundness

The court concluded that a review cannot be entertained based on a subsequent order in a separate petition as it would amount to treating the review as an appeal

No order was made as to costs