ORDER :

D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Civil Review application has been preferred by the original appellant for review of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.44 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17th December, 2014.

2. This applicant (original appellant) is alleged to have been appointed through a meeting convened by Aam Sabha of a village which is mentioned in the review application. The very selection, was vitiated because of the fraud as held by the Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of this court while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the applicant (original appellant) that the appellant was not responsible for the fraud.

4. Be that as it may, while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal this Court has never held that the appellant was the brain-child of the fraud, rather, the observation of the Division Bench is that if the selection process is vitiated by fraud, the grain and chaff cannot be separated. Meaning thereby, innocent persons cannot be allowed to be continued into the Government services, when the very selection process was vitiated by fraud.

5. Whenever “selection process” is vitiated by fraud, all the selectees have to go home including the innocent appointees.

6. We are not here to find out fault of this appellant. What is observed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench is about the selection process. This selection was at a centre, which was vitiated by fraud. No relief was granted by the Division Bench of this Court, to the petitioner.

7. Even otherwise also, the order which was under challenge was an appeallable one under Clause 15 of the Scheme and the appeal is maintainable at law before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District, which has not been preferred by this appellant.

8. Even otherwise also, the review is not tenable at law, because the review is not an appeal in disguise. Only for an error apparent on the face of the record can be reviewed. If any error can be found out after lengthy argument and after long discussion and after lot of dissection of facts, the order passed by this Court cannot be reviewed, because it is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

9. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, at paragraph 3 as under :

“3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor’s order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That w