IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CM-1490-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-55-2026 in CWP-889-2024 Date of Decision : February 11, 2026 Sunil Kumar .. Applicant-Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate, for respondents-UT, Chandigarh.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-1490-CWP-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the review application i.e. RA-CW-55-2026. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 39 days in filing the review application is condoned.

RA-CW-55-2026

1. Present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in CWP No.889 of 2024.

2. In the present review application, the prayer being raised by the applicant-petitioner is that the post of Clerk is lying vacant and therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant-

petitioner in a time bound manner and to promote him from Group D to Group C post of Clerk.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that the said prayer is covered within the purview of review.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. The review is only permissible where, an incorrect fact has been noticed and relied upon to record a finding or where a fact which is material for the decision of the case was not within the knowledge of the party concerned and on the basis of the said fact, the review is filed. The review cannot be filed for re-arguing the case on the basis of the same facts already on record to convince the Court to arrive at a conclusion different than the one arrived at while deciding the proceedings.

6. In the present case, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner concedes that there is no incorrect fact which has been relied upon in the judgment to record the finding.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that once the posts are vacant, the respondents are under an obligation to consider and promote the applicant-petitioner in a time bound manner.

8. The said assertion was not even raised at the time when the writ petition was decided especially when the order was dictated in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner.

9. Be that as it may, the only argument being pressed in the review application is that the posts are there and therefore, the respondents should be made to hold the DPC so as to promote the applicant-petitioner.

10. On being asked to point out as to whether the promotion can be claimed as a right and the respondents are bound to fill up the post even if the same is vacant, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has not been able to cite any law that if post is vacant, the employer is bound to fill the same by way of promotion even if the work of the same is not needed keeping in view the workload being executed by the employer.

11. In the absence of any such law brought before this Court so as to claim a promotion as a matter of right and that too in a time bound manner, even the said plea being raised in the review application is incorrect.

12. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicant-petitioners cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs.Jothibai Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section