RANCHI, India, Nov. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 17:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the Review-Petitioners assailed the order passed by the writ court by submitting that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. It appears that the Review-Petitioners have questioned the findings of Writ Court and argued that the case of appointees of work charge establishment and that of the daily wagers appointed prior to regularization are different and not the same.

4. It has also been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no intention to give the benefit of past services to the employees and the direction was limited to mere regularization of the services of the employees engaged on daily wages basis. Ld. Counsel thereafter have cited the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh1 .

5. However, after perusing the order under review, it appears that this issue has been dealt with by the Writ Court in the order, wherein in this regard a reference of the judgment in the case of S. Sumnayan & Ors. Vs. Liminiri 2 has been made. The Writ Court has also distinguished the judgment cited by the State, who is before this Court under Review Jurisdiction.

6. As far as law of review is concerned; it is now well settled that the interference could be attracted only in case where an apparent error or a new fact may have crept after the judgment has been passed.

7. In the present case, there is no new fact that was not within the knowledge of the parties, at the time of passing of the order under review. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the facts have been missed. The order/judgment is a speaking order and deals with every aspect of the matter.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer3 have enunciated certain guidelines for review. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below:

16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqOeKZ1ts2kSejdSS23alm1z8cHd8lwSomLe%2FVDjW%2BpeE&caseno=C.Rev./110/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010437082024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.