Review jurisdiction cannot reopen concluded issues absent a patent error apparent on the face of the record.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a review petition seeking recall of the final order dated 27 January 2026 passed in W.P. No. 649/2017.

The State contended that the earlier order had failed to consider the compassionate-appointment policy dated 22 August 1980, under which appointment could not be made to a Class-II Gazetted post; that the respondent lacked the requisite qualification for the post of Registrar; that appointment was required to be made through the Public Service Commission; that she had been required to pass the Accounts Examination within two years; and that the PSC had not approved her appointment.

The respondent submitted that the Accounts Examination issue had already been considered, that the department had not sent her for training, and that no PSC advertisement had ever been issued for the post of Registrar.

She had been appointed on compassionate grounds on 30 October 1987 and continued in service until retirement on 31 August 2014, without any challenge to the legality of her appointment for approximately 27–28 years.

Whether the State had demonstrated a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other permissible ground under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, warranting review of the order dated 27 January 2026

Whether the respondent’s compassionate appointment could be cancelled or her service status denied after approximately 27–28 years on the grounds that the appointment allegedly violated the applicable policy, lacked PSC approval, or involved non-fulfilment of qualification and examination requirements

The Court applied Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is maintainable only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Relying on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise, cannot be used to rehear the matter or adopt an alternative view, and is confined to patent, self-evident errors requiring no elaborate reasoning.

It also relied on Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342, for the principle that the State cannot, after a prolonged period, terminate a compassionate appointment for an alleged governmental mistake where the appointee had not committed fraud, suppressed material facts, or made false declarations.

Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., 2013 AIR SCW 2905, was cited for the principle that mere disagreement with the earlier decision or the availability of another possible view does not justify review.

The Court held that the Accounts Examination issue had already been addressed in the earlier judgment, including the fact that the department had not sent the respondent for Accounts Training.

The objection regarding PSC approval did not disclose an apparent error because no PSC advertisement had been issued for the post of Registrar, and the respondent could not have participated in a selection process that had not been initiated.

The appointment had been made by the State Government, and there was no material showing that the respondent had suppressed facts or furnished incorrect information.

Further, the State had permitted her to remain in service from 1987 until retirement in 2014 without questioning the appointment.

Applying Md. Zamil Ahmed, the Court concluded that any mistake or irregularity was attributable to the State itself and could not, after 27–28 years, be used to prejudice the respondent, particularly in the absence of fraud or suppression.

The grounds raised by the State therefore amounted to an attempt to reargue the merits rather than identify a patent error apparent on the record.

It further held that the respondent’s appointment could not be cancelled, nor her status as a regular Registrar denied, after decades of service and retirement on the basis of an alleged irregularity attributable to the State.

The review petition was consequently dismissed.