Review jurisdiction is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and cannot be used as an appeal mechanism.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the 1^st respondent in W.A.No.162 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2025, passed by this Court in that writ appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, the learned counsel for the

6^th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5^th respondent relinquished the post of Principal and the 6^th respondent continues as Principal in charge from 13.11.2021 onwards. The Manager did not disclose the said fact before this Court while filing the appeal. Believing the version of the management, this Court allowed the appeal, declaring the 5^th respondent as qualified to become Principal of the Higher Secondary School. Therefore, the judgment was obtained without presenting all the facts. From Annexure-E appointment order dated 02.11.2021, it is clear that the 5^th respondent was appointed with effect from 02.11.2021 by the management. After the disposal of the writ appeal, management issued Annexure-G communication to the 5^th respondent appointing her as Principal in Charge with effect from 13.10.2025, and she relinquished her claim on the same date. Thereafter, Annexure-J appointment order dated 30.10.2025 was issued to the 6^th respondent to defeat the claim of the review petitioner. The review petitioner is entitled to become Principal at least from 26.03.2019 onwards. Hence, the matter has to be reheard by setting aside the judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that Annexures-G to J documents now produced by the petitioner are subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal. Moreover, from Annexure F order dated 12.11.2021 in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021, it is clear that the order dated 28.10.2021 referred in Annexure E appointment order is produced in that writ petition as Ext.P17. Hence, there is no suppression of any fact from the side of the 1^st respondent. Moreover, Annexure-I document, which is a statement of relinquishment produced by the petitioner, is not even countersigned by the Manager. How the petitioner obtained that document is best known to the petitioner alone.

5. The learned counsel for the 6^th respondent would submit that the 6^th respondent was appointed temporarily since the 5^th respondent relinquished her claim.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the present review petition is an appeal in disguise. Annexure E document produced by the petitioner was issued on the basis of the order dated 28.10.2021 of the Regional Deputy Director, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021. The remaining documents, that is, Annexures-G to J, are subsequent to the passing of the judgment and have no relevance as far as the present review petition is concerned.

7. To understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

“114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the