101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Applicants/petitioners VERSUS CAT AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Chaman Deep, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Sr. Panel Counsel for Union of India.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. The present review application has been filed seeking the review of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal denying the claim of promotion with retrospective effect, was upheld.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submits that the view taken by the Division Bench that even if the posts have been filled beyond the quota of 25% from compassionate appointment, but the same will not give a right to the petitioners to claim benefit of promotion, is incorrect, as once the promotion from a particular category is to be filled keeping in view the fact that quota for the same is beyond their entitlement, the said excess posts filled up should have been given to the petitioners who were claiming promotion in the category to which petitioner belongs.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the review applicant- petitioner and counsel for UOI and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

4. Firstly the jurisdiction of the review is very narrow and only an order which has been based upon incorrect facts can be reviewed. In the present case, the prayer of the petitioner is that the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing the order dated 05.02.2025 is incorrect. The said argument would not satisfy condition which is required to review an order but would rather fall within the domain of an appeal. In case the petitioner is aggrieved against the said finding of the Division Bench and as no incorrect fact is relied upon to reach the finding so recorded the petitioner should avail appropriate remedy of appeal as review is not permissible.

5. As per settled principle of law, the incorrect order can only be challenged in appeal and not in review petition. 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 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:“

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reason