IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.308 of 2008. - - - - - - - - 1.Dr. Bhola Nath Singh son of late Jagat Narayan Singh @ Jagdhari Singh, Resident of village + P.O. Akauna, P.S. Goh, District Aurangabad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, through its V.C. 3.The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4.The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna, 5.The Secretary, Vishnu Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5.The Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna Vishnu Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6.The Governing Body, Through its Secretary, Thakur B.D.Sinha Janta College, Akauna, Goh, Aurangabad. 7.Dr.Sachchidanand Singh, son of Late Kumar Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village Saraiya, P.O.+ P.S. Goh, District Aurangabad. . . . . . . Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. M/s.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Onkar Kumar and Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the University: Mr.Rajendra Kuar Giri, Adv. For the State : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16. For Pvt. Res.No.7 : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, Adv. ----------- 6. 09.09.2009 On hearing the parties, I.A.No. 3479 of 2009 is allowed and the delay is condoned. Petitioner has preferred this review application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His prayer is that on review, this Court’s order dated 10th September 2008 whereby L.P.A.No. 1225 of 2002 was allowed, be recalled and then the L.P.A. be dismissed. The O.P.No.7 Dr. Sachchidanand Singh had filed writ application under C.W.J.C.No. 628 of 2000 whereunder he had questioned the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, whereby the name of the review petitioner, who happens to be Respondent no.7 in that 2 application, had alone been recommended for appointment to the post of Principal in Thakur B.D. Sinha Janta College, Aukauna, Aurangabad. The review petitioner or the university who also was one of the respondents in the writ application had not filed any counter affidavit. The writ petition was dismissed by a single Bench of this Court vide order dated 8th October 2002. The O.P.No.7 preferred the said L.P.A. No. 1225 of 2002 which was allowed by setting aside the order of the single Bench as passed in C.W.J.C.No. 628 of 2002. During hearing of this review application, firstly the question of its maintainability was addressed. Admittedly, this review application has been filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear in regard to impermissibility of review by a person who considers himself aggrieved by an order from which an appeal is allowed by the said Code, but he has not preferred any appeal. It points filing of a review petition against an order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code. The review petitioner has undoubtedly filed SLA (Civil) No. 6277 of 2009 before the Apex Court against the judgment in LPA which is under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and not under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court vide its order dated 6th July 2009 has directed this Court for disposal of the review application. For the reasons aforesaid, the argument of Respondent No.7 herein that this review petition is not 3 maintainable under Section 114 of the Code of Civil procedure is not acceptable. We hasten to add that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 (V 50 C 273) had held that “there is nothing in Art.226 of 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.” Taking support from what has been held by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th June 1979 in C.W.J.C.No. 4468 of 1978 (Dr. Deva Prasad Sengupta Vrs. The Patna University & Ors), that Section 57(2)(b) of Patna university Act is directory, learned counsel for the review- petitioner argued that section 2(9) of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 which is in pari materia and requires the recommendation of names of two persons against one post was also not mandatory rather directory. During hearing of L.P.A. this point was not raised. Any-way even if the provision is directory, but when two persons were available for the post and they had been interviewed by the Commission it was required that some reasons should have been given why his name was not recommended. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner also argued that the O.P.No.7 was not qualified for being appointed, hence his name was not recommended. But this point was already heard and decided 4 on merit in the said L.P.A. holding that the fact that the College Service Commission issued an interview letter to the writ petitioner prima facie established that the College Service Commission before issuing the letter for the interview did consider that the appellant was qualified to respond to the said advertisement. It was also submitted on behalf of the review-petitioner that the O.P.No.7 having been unsuccessful in the interview could not have challenged the selection process. But this point was also heard and decided in the L.P.A. which held that the petitioner did not challenge the selection process but the outcome of selection pointing out that the same was contrary to the statutory mandate. Thus, the petitioner engaging in a long drawn process of argument wants to challenge the findings of this Court on merit on various points by attempting to make rehearing of the case on all points and get a reversal of the order passed in the said L.P.A. It is not permissible under review jurisdiction. Review of an order can be entertained only to cure or correct an apparent grave or palpable error on record. A finding on merit arrived at after full hearing cannot be allowed a fresh hearing for coming to a different conclusion. Thus hearing, we find that the review application is untenable, hence it is dismissed as such. Jay/ ( C.M.Prasad,J ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)