Revlew Pstffion No,77 of 2007 AgMCam Anjani Kumar Pandey, S/o. Shri Babulai Pandey, aged about 31 years, R/o. Dampara, Konhargarh, Janpad Panchayat-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir Champa (CG). Versus tesDoncients State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Secretar;', Panchayat and SociaS Vtfeifare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantra'aya, Rsipur (CG). 2) CollectoF, Jsnjgir-Champa Cum-Mission Director, Dlstrid Janjgir-Champa (CG). 3) Chief Executsve Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District -Janjgir- Champa CG). :"». i-^ y^^ t^/t ^^'•^ v*i^^^^i* .f^*s4t. Ls^ ^»*stf^^"^ ^"/^^^ E*^. 1 <ip^ *"i v^^i ^.1 •rj ^3ic;iu r^esii^iiciysi.-rs.yuHidiycii^ii -jdiipsaLi Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (CG), through its Secretary/Sarpanch. CReview Pet Chhatiisgarh R ition under Chapter V! Ruje 75/76 of the High Court of u!ss, 2005 for review of order dated 20-2-2007 passed in WP.No.3144/2003) 'Hi^ ^r ^.^'fi' ii a^i^ s^'ii , -!3<%^i-.S3 lili^i? I. ^. Present Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counse! for the applicant, ith •r- Oftft?! This review petltion is flled .toy the writ petltionsr, seeking review of ths order dated 20-2-2007 passed by this Court in Writ-Petltlon No. 3144 of 2003 (Anjant Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Chhatttsgarh and oinsrs^. , jp^ - 2.- ('1; Th."s •SJs,f^ :T, n;^c;h^N c"c. •a-^<,'=-i- •S-h:s ^^.i ;^ ^jL-^^i r\y^&~ .'^•si-fflf^ £-j - 1 U^ ieSw^, M\ U^lSUie?ii; ifia'te U^i. i.U1^ S^L?Uii. VIU^s iJsuyi uc<i.^^ 2Q-2-2007, dismissed the wrii petltion o* the petitioner hoiding that, the appointment of the petifioner as second Guruji in the school, was not In accordance v/ith the constitutlona! scheme as the second Guruii shouid necessarily bs a iady candidate, therefore, the petitionsr had no right to the post. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeai being 'A'rit Appeal No.240 of 2007, which was dismissed as not pressed on 14-9-2007, with Siberiy to file review petitton. Thus, this review petfflon. 3) Lesrned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this review petition has not raised sny new grounds, except bringing to the notice of this Court the Minutes of Resolution dated 18-9-2002, passed by t'ne Standing Education Committee of th® Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh (Annexure P/10). The soie contention of the petltloner v/ith regard to the Minutes of Resolution is that, vide subject No.7 of the said resoiution, the name of the petitloner was unariimously recommended for appointment to the post of second Guruji and the appoinment order of the petitioner dated 1-10-2002 was issued in his favour. Learnec counse! funher submits that white dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner, In spite of due dlligence, was not be abls to obtain and fite/piacs before the Hon'ble Court the Minutes of Reso'lution datee 18-9-2002 (Annexure P/10). 4) Chalienge in t'ne main petition was to quash and set aside the order dated 27-1-2003 whereby the appo'ntrnent of the petitioner by order dated 17-1-2003 v/as canceiied. The petitsoner was appointed along with others by order dated 17-1-2003 (Annexure P/5 to the Writ Petition) as second Guruji in the schoo'. The appointment of the fff^ •1"^ ^ 1 ' \^J/ ""oAsa.^ •ss' Detitioner as second Guru'ii 'A-as made on the basis of certain resolution, \vhich does not confer any right on the petitioner to be appointsd as second Guruji. According to She petffioner, there was a resoiution dated 18-9-2002 (Annexurs P/10) which is being produced atong with review petition. Resolution by itself Is not operative, but it has to be followed by some ordsr. The ord.er of appointment of the petitioner dated 17-1-2003 v^as cancelied by order dated 27-1-2003, which 'A'as smpugned in th® main petttion. This court, after hearing ail the parties and considering the relevant provisions of'aw and scheme, heid that 'ihe appointment of the petitioner on the basis of order dated 17-1-2003 (Annexure P/5) was no'i in accordance with the const'rtutional scheme. 5) T'ne petitioner has not ralsed any other ground. The resoiution dated 18-9-2002 (Annexure Pf'10) carne into possession ofthe petitloner aftsr disposal of t'ns writ petition, which cannot a!ter the decisson passec 1n the writ petition. 6) On perusal of t'ne papsrs and documents appended thereto, there is no apparent error on the face of records. So far as t'ne ground for review petition is concerned, ths petitioner has not mentioned anv other ground excspt as stated above in the review petition. Moreover, the pleadings contained in the review petition are same as that of the writ petttion Vi'hich was dismissed by this Court after examlning ali the aspects in detail. 7) The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error in the record. it is weii settSed principies of law that the review proceedlngs are not by way of an appeai and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civii Procedure, even in exereise of "•....-„• ^EESSSsS.-af-S ;'"SifSd'^'*^jys?^' ^•""S3*^ .?ft-^S '••i '•^s^Rr...^. •V^'K^.'- •\ '^ •^ ': !< - review jurisdiction by the High under Ariicie 226 of the Constitutlon cf 8) App!ying the wel! settied princlples of law to the present case, no ground is made out for review of the order datsd 20-2-2007 passed in Wrlt Petition Mo. 3144/2003. Under the garb of the revlew application, t'ne petitloner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh, whic'n' would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same if ^ii^^in?!: is not sustaina&ie in tew. . SS'Li 9) As a resuit and in vle'w of the foregoing, the review appi'ication is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge fie^S