mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANTS REVIEWPETITIONNo. 56 of2008 1. The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distaict Raipur (CG). 2. The Chairman, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur ((CG). VERSUS 1. Preeti Choudhary, D/o Shri Dev Prasad Choudhary, aged about 20 years, R/o Fool Chowk, near Devika Hotel, Jorapara, Raipur (CG). 2. The State of CKhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). APPLICATIONFORKEVIEAVING OF ORDERDTD. 03.12.2008 PASSED BSTWRIT PETITION (0 PRNO. 6842/2008. fBY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB: Hon'ble ShrLSatish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 19thday ofJanuary, 2009) 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions ofSub Rule 2 ofRule 90 under Chapter VI ofthe High Court ofChhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The original writ petition being W.P.(C) PR No. 6842/08 was disposed ofon 03.12.2008, on the basis ofclear and categorical statement made by the leamed counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the original mark sheet would be supplied to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. The review petitioners/respondents No. 2 & 3 therein have sought a review ofthe said order. 3. The main grounds raised in this review petition is that under rules, if there is a variation of less than 10 percent marks, the candidate is not entitled to benefit of change of marks. The respondent No. 1 was accordingly informed on 13.12.2008, which the writ petitioner suppressed in the writ petition from this court. Thus, it is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of suppression offacts. 4. Be that as it may, the writ petition was not decided ex-parte and no order was passed in absence ofrepresentations ofthe review petitioners. Sahu 7. 8. 9. 10. The points raised herein were not disclosed by the respondent at time ofhearing ofthe writ petition. It is admitted fact that in the first examination, the petitioner got 354 marks and as a student ofDivisional Improve Group, she secured 385 maiks in the subsequent examination, which is less than 35.4 i.e. 10 percent of 354 marks. On pemsal of the papers and documents appended thereto, there is no apparent error on the face ofrecords. The review petition does not point out any manifest error on the face of the record and the petition has not further brought into fhe notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the review petitioners. It is well settled principle oflaw that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant has not produced any new ground for review. The principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, Govemment of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others and Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others . Applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, there is no ground available for review ofthe order dated 03.12.2008. Under the garb ofthe review petition, the petitioners seek an opportunity toargue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. As a result and in view of the foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. ——---—-— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR200SC1650 3AIR2000SC85 4 2005 (2) SCC 332 3 2005(6)8cc 651