IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Civil Review No. 225 of 2007. Mahendra Prasad, son of Late Deo Nath Garain, R/o Village – Laxmipur, P.O. Samyagarh, P.S. Ghosbari (Mokamah), Distt. – Patna at present posted as Typist, Flood Control Cirlce Office, Buxer, P.S. and District – Patna. …. (Petitioner in CWJC No. 2033 of 1998) …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Establishment Committee-cum-Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariate, Patna, and 3. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dehri ………….. Respondents –Opposite Parties. 2. 26.04.2010. This is an application for review of the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Full Bench in CWJC No. 2033 of 1998. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the subsequent events are taken into consideration it would warrant a review under the provision contained under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under the plenary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Be it noted, the subsequent documents that have been brought on record relate to differential treatment met to certain employees who are working in the same department. It is well known principle of law, Article 14 does not come into play in the realm of negative equality. 2 In this context we may refer with profit to the decision in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others, AIR 1979 SC 1047 wherein it has been held as follows: “3. …. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was 3 erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Sub-ordinate Court.” In Rejendra Kumar and others v. Rambhai and others, AIR 2003 SC 2095 a three-Judge bench of the Apex Court has held thus: “5. On perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of reappreciating the evidence and on such reappreciation of evidence re-determined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will 4 lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.” In the case at hand, the only ground that is canvassed for entertaining the application for review is that certain documents could not be brought on record when the matter was taken up by the Full Bench and the said documents relate to differential treatment met to certain other employees who are working in the same department. Having heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel XXI for the State, we are of the considered opinion that the same cannot be a ground for review for two counts, namely, the same does not come within the scope of review as the said documents do not make any difference and, secondly, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not encapsule and engulf in its ambit and sweep any kind of negative equality. What is really sought to be highlighted by way of review is that the petitioners were differently treated. Be that as it 5 may, the same cannot be the foundation to review an order passed by the Full Bench. In view of the aforesaid we do not find any substance in the application for review and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( S. N. Hussain, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Dilip.