IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

105 +106 Date of decision: 4^th December, 2025

105 (1) RA-CW-562-2025 in CWP No. 8124 of 2024 Chandigarh Administration Through Secretary Education and another ..Petitioners Versus Pawan Kumar and others ..Respondents (2) RA-CW-563-2025 in CWP No. 3005 of 2024 Chandigarh Administration and another ..Petitioners Versus Vishal Khanna and others ..Respondents

106 (3) RA-CW-561-2025 in CWP No.8126 of 2024 Chandigarh Administration and another ..Petitioners Versus Narender and others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate with Mr. K. Vinay, Advocate for review-applicants.

Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Advocate Additional Standing counsel UT, Chandigarh and Mr. Ujval Mittal, Advocate Junior Panel Counsel UT Chandigarh for non-applicants.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J(Oral)

1. The present review applications have been filed for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 29.10.2025 by which the writ petitions filed by the Chandigarh Administration against the order passed by the Tribunal were allowed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of review-applicants argues that the correct position with regard to framing of rules was not brought to the notice of the Court by the Chandigarh Administration as the rules were amended by the Chandigarh Administration only to bring the same in consonance with the rules which have been framed by the National Council for Teacher Education and therefore, the said aspect has not been clearly spelled out by the Chandigarh Administration while addressing arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicants further submits that keeping in view the settled principle of law which was brought to the notice of the Court, they were entitled for the grant of relief but the said judgment has not been taken into consideration in a manner required and therefore, there has been a miscarriage of justice which needs to be corrected by way of review.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the review-applicants and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

5. The argument and the effort of the learned counsel for the review-applicants is to re-argue the case so as to convince the Court to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at. The further argument of learned counsel for the review-applicants is that the judgment which was brought to the notice of the Court has not been appreciated in a manner required which has led to the passing of the order against the review-applicants, which needs to be reviewed. It is argued that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, clearly covers the case in favour of the review-applicant.

6. The law as to what is the jurisdiction for entertaining the review petition is very much settled. In case, the judgment is being termed as incorrect or contrary to the settled principle of law, the remedy available is to prefer an appeal and not filing of review. The review against a judgment already pronounced can only be accepted in case the facts on the basis of which the judgment has been given are found to be incorrect or, the fact which existed at the time of judgment, could not be brought to the notice of the Court due to the ignorance of the same at the hands of review-applicant. None of these essential ingredients for exercising of the review jurisdiction are present in the present case so as to review the order. The law is settled which is being dealt hereinafter.

7. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicants 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 afo