The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and it can only be sought if there is a material error manifest on the face of the order that undermines its soundness or results in a miscarriage of justice.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

By the present application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), the appellant (in the Letters Patent Appeal) seeks review of the order of the Division Bench, dated 08.08.2014, passed in L.P.A. No.1121 of 2013, vide which the Letters Patent Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in limine finding no merit in the appeal against the order, dated 24.06.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the Writ Petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(a) The petitioner applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher under the Gram Panchayat Raj, Durgapur (for short Gram Panchayat), in the district of Katihar, on 15.11.2008, against a vacancy meant for handicapped quota. The petitioner belongs to physically handicapped (Deaf-Mute) category and had secured 50.11% marks in the Intermediate Examination. His case is that though he appeared on the date of counseling on 28th February, 2009, ignoring his claim, Respondent No.7 Rakesh Kumar Paswan, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was appointed against the vacancy.

(b) Being aggrieved by the appointment of Rakesh Kumar Paswan, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal), Katihar, vide Appeal No.44 of 2010. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the roster point on which the vacancy had arisen was meant for handicapped category and the petitioner, being one of the candidates, who had applied in that category, ought to have been appointed against that post, but the respondents erroneously treated it to have been reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and appointed Rakesh Kumar Paswan, a Scheduled Caste candidate, against the said vacancy.

(c) The Tribunal issued notices to the Respondent Mukhiya, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and Rakesh Kumar Paswan. After service of notices, the parties were heard. They adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the vacancy was meant for Scheduled Caste category and not for handicapped category. It further held that the petitioner had secured 50.11% marks in the Intermediate Examination, whereas Rakesh Kumar Paswan, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, had secured 51% marks in the said Examination.

(d) On examination of relevant records presented by the Panchayat Secretary, the Tribunal also held that as the petitioner was not present during counseling held on 29.12.2010, he could not have claimed appointment against the post, in question. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 12.03.2013.

(e) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the petitioner assailed the order before this Court in writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8463 of 2013. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order, dated 24.06.2013, holding therein that the Tribunal committed no error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as the post, in question, was for the Scheduled Caste category and Respondent No.7 was, indisputably, a candidate of that category and had also secured higher marks (51%) than the petitioner (50.11 % marks) in Intermediate Examination.

(f) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal vide L.P.A. No. 1121 of 2013, which was dismissed in limine vide order, dated 08.08.2014, keeping in view the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the post, in question, was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.

(g) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, dated 08.08.2014, before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.501-502 of 2015. The Supreme Court disposed of the application fi