The main legal point established is that the scope of review lies only for patent error and can be allowed on specific grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

Anil Kumar,J.

Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record.

By means of the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2013 passed by this Court in writ petition no. 3198 (SS) of 2003 (Dr. Sursari Tarang Misra vs. U.P. Sainik School Society and Ors.)

2. Initially, Dr. Sursari Tarang Misra approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3198 (SS) of 2003 with the prayer that an advertisement dated 1.3.2000 has been published in the daily newspaper i.e. Dainik Jagaran for regular appointment on various posts in the Institution known as U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.

3. In response to the said facts, the review petitioner appeared before the interview/selection committee for appointment on the post of Hindi Teacher. The said committee has recommended the petitioner for giving an ad-hoc appointment and on 1.7.2000, he was appointed as a Master in Hindi in the Institution (hereinafter referred to as the Institution). In the said capacity, he worked and discharged his duties uptill 10.5.2013. Thereafter, his services were terminated on the ground of contractual employee and a period of contractual appointment has come to an end.

4. In view of the above factual background, Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the review-petitioner while pressing the review-petition submits that an advertisement in pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted his candidature for regular appointment, so he is entitled for regular salary and regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment w.e.f. 1.7.2000 including all other service benefits admissible to the post held by the review petitioner as he is working and discharging his duties. So, the action on the part of the official respondent thereby paying the consolidated amount to the review petitioner whereas the other teachers who are working in the Sainik School are being paid regular pay scale is arbitrary in nature.

5. Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the review petition submits that while passing the judgment and order dated 27.11.2013, this Court has not considered the matter in regard to the payment of regular salary to the review petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2000 and not to pay the same regularly.

6. Needless to mention herein that after arguing at some length, Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for review petitioner admits that the fact in regard to payment of regular salary and regularization of the petitioner has not been argued/pressed when the matter was heard in Writ Petition No.3198 (SS) of 2003.

7. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the review petitioner and going through the record before deciding review petition, I feel it appropriate to state the ambit and scope under which the court can review its earlier order.

8. In this regard Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.

9. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 , the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed