Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors manifest on the face of the record or considering newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-argue merits or correct errors that require a complex process of reasoning to identify.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Heard Mr. D Mazumdar, learned Senior State Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Nath for the review petitioner and Mr D Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. This application was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 21.07.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 5072/2007. Before going into the facts narrated in the review petition as well as the law, this Court would like to narrate the detail facts involved in the said case.

FACTS:

3. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5066 of 2016 that an advertisement was issued on 18.09.1998, calling for applications from the intending candidates, who had passed the Assam Survey Training Examination, for filling up the post of Mandals, lying vacant in the amalgamated establishment of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the selection process started and the select list of 38 candidates was prepared on 19.06.1999, wherein the petitioners appeared at Serial No. 29, 31 to 35. It is stated by the learned counsels that the candidates appearing at Serial No. 32 as well as 35 had expired, however, pursuant to the said select list, 23 candidates were appointed and the petitioners were not appointed in the said post. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 9294 of 2004 and the said case was disposed of in the motion stage itself on the consent of the learned counsel for all the parties vide order dated 17.12.2004. During the proceeding the learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners could not be appointed due to a ban imposed for appointments and that they will be appointed once the ban is over and on the said submission, this Court gave a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, to appoint the petitioners in accordance with law and the said writ petition was disposed of.

4. Against the said order dated 17.12.2004, a review application was filed by the petitioner, praying therein that the appointing authority is not the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, but the direction is required to be made to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, to appoint the petitioners in the vacant post of Mandal. The petitioners filed a review application, since they came to know about the said fact after the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of. In view of the said submissions, this Court had reviewed the order and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang District, to appoint the petitioners in the vacant post of Mandal, after getting approval from the Government and also immediately after the ban of appointment gets lifted. The said review application was disposed of on 31.05.2005.

5. Pursuant to the said order, an office order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, on 21st of December, 2005, by which the petitioners were appointed. It was stipulated in the said order that the petitioners Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed against the existing vacancy and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed in place of an employee, who had retired. The said order also reflects that appointments were made in pursuance to the approval of the Governor of Assam dated 09.12.2005, with further stipulation that the petitioners were appointed as they appe