The central legal point established in the judgment is that a review lies only for patent error and can be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - This application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing the order dated 5.4.2017 passed in CWP No. 13516 of 2013.

2. In brief, the facts are that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the decision of the Syndicate and the decision to extend the cutoff date from 31.12.2008 to 23.3.2011 for applicability of the Carrier Advancement Scheme (CAS). The writ petition was dismissed holding that the decision did not smack of any arbitrariness. Consequent to the disposal of the writ petition, a review application has been filed by the respondent-University seeking recall of the order on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition and after filing of the written statement, the UGC had issued instructions dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure A/1), which clearly states that any candidate who had become eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme on or after 31st December, 2008, the promotion of such a candidate shall be governed by the provisions of these Regulations, namely, 'UGC Regulations, 2010' as amended from time to time and if any candidate become eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme prior to 31.12.2008, the promotion of such a candidates shall be governed by the provisions of 'UGC Regulations 2000'. It is contended that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.12.2014 (Annexure A/2) had already adopted the UGC Guidelines and in case the judgment sought to be reviewed is not amended or modified, a huge anomaly would arise in the pay of the candidates. It is also argued that it is only on reading of the judgment that the applicant/University became aware that the relevant instructions dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure A/1) had not been brought to the notice of the Court and also that the same has been adopted by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.12.2014 (Annexure A/2).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/University argues that Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a judgment to be reviewed if a person aggrieved of the order or decree can satisfy the Court that the information sought to be placed on the record could not have been done so despite due diligence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/UGC has filed its reply and supports the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/University stating that the University could not have been allowed extension of the cutoff date, while arguing that Annexure A/1 on the record had come into existence which clearly specifies that a candidate would be governed in terms of the UGC Regulations mentioned therein.

5. Per contra, Mr. Charajiv Singh-respondent No. 4, who appears in person, submits that the review application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the applicant/University has not been able to show due diligence as to why Annexures A/1 and A/2 were not placed before the writ Court, while arguing that there is clear attempt to seek de-novo hearing of the writ petition. In support of his contentions, he relies on the judgments rendered in State of West Bengal V. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 and Kiran Rosy V. State of Punjab and others RA-CW-187 of 2014 in CWP No. 15480 of 2013 decided on 8.4.2015 to argue that a review would not be maintainable until and unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is not so in the present case.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the documents.

7. There is no doubt that the scope of interference in a review petition is limited. The error should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which is manifest on the face of the record. A review cannot be a ruse to set aside the judgment and decree and become a means for reopening the case. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but a review