### Scope of Review Jurisdiction Is Restricted to Apparent Errors and Precludes Re-Hearing on Merits Facts: The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) sought a review of a judgment that had quashed the cancellation of a candidate's selection. The review was primarily sought on grounds previously argued and decided in the original writ petition. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting "errors apparent on the face of record." It clarified that a review cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise" to re-argue overruled contentions or seek a substitution of the Court’s view. Mere disagreement with judicial reasoning does not constitute a valid ground for review; such challenges must be addressed before a higher forum.

The respondent (Irfan Yusuf) applied for the post of Laboratory Officer under the OBC category at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT).

After qualifying for the written and technical tests, he was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list.

On 25.10.2023, the petitioners cancelled his candidature alleging he provided incorrect experience information.

The respondent challenged this via a writ petition, which the High Court allowed on 12.12.2025, quashing the cancellation and directing his retrospective appointment due to the non-joining of the selected candidate.

The petitioners subsequently filed this review petition seeking to set aside the judgment dated 12.12.2025.

Whether the review petitioners established sufficient grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC or Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules to warrant a review of the impugned judgment.

Whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists, or if the petitioners are attempting to seek a re-hearing of the case under the guise of a review.

The Court applied Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, which restricts the power of review to grounds enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Under these provisions, a review is permissible only upon the discovery of new evidence (despite due diligence), a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other "sufficient reason".

The Court relied on *Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi*, which clarifies that an error must be self-evident and not require a process of reasoning to detect.

The Court relied on *Lily Thomas v. Union of India*, which establishes that review power is for correcting mistakes, not substituting views or acting as an "appeal in disguise".

The Court examined the grounds raised by the petitioners.

It observed that the arguments presented in the review petition were a mere repetition of the original contentions already addressed and adjudicated in the main writ petition.

The Court reasoned that if the logic applied in the original judgment was legally flawed, the proper remedy was an appeal to a higher forum rather than a review.

Following the precedent in *Inderchand Jain v. Motilal*, the Court emphasized that it cannot sit in appeal over its own order or allow a re-hearing of the matter.

Since no new evidence was produced and no self-evident error was found on the face of the record, the Court determined that the legal threshold for exercising review jurisdiction was not met.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that all contentions had been appropriately dealt with in the original judgment and that a mere repetition of overruled arguments does not justify review.

Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.