^RAt^ '^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 7^v /201 1 (Seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2011 Passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ petition (S) No.4075/2011) —- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Patel, S/o Late Set Kumar Patel, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Bus Depot, Rambhatha Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. L( 3. The District Education Officer, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. REVIEW PETITION ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON»BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 4075 of 2011 '^' fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS REVIEW PETITION No. 76 of2011 Ashok Kumar Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. hNI^^»N» Y-^ REVIEW PETITION ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2011 PASSED BY TfflS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4075 OF 2011 (BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 09th day of September, 2011) 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The review petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 28.07.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4075 of 2011 (Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh. & Others), by this Court, whereunder the challenge of the petitioner to the order dated 15.07.2011, was dismissed. 3. The petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 28.07.2011 on the ground that in case of W.P (S) No. 4211/2011, the petitioner therein was holding post of Secretary of a recognized union namely Chhattisgarh Lipik Vargiya Shashkiya Karmachari Sangh, and as such, in view ofthe memo dated 24.06.19965 transfer order was stayed as the office bearer of a recognized Union at the State or District level are protected from transfer for a period of three years. Thus, the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by this court requires review. Amit 4. The above stated ground was neither pleaded nor argued in the writ petition filed by the review petitioner. Thus., this review petition on a afresh ground is not maintainable. 5. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled prmciples of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confmed to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. 6. It appears that the petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opgortunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb ofthe review petition which is not pemiissible and texiable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb ofreview petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review .petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See : Meera Bhanjan v. Smt Nirmal Kumar Cohwdhary , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union oflndia and others , Ajit Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa and others , Government ofT.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others4, and Kerla StateElectricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm-& Hydropo^er Ltd. and others5.) 7. As a rosult and in view ofthe foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR2000SC1650 3 AIR 2000 SC 85 4 (2005) 2 SCC 332 5 (2005) 6 SCC 651