S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri VB. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Perused the application seeking review of the final order dated 11-3-97 where under the writ petition filed by the applicant had been dismissed as well as the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking interim relief. 3. In the writ petition the applicant had indicated separately the grounds on the which he sought to challenge the order ter minating his service including the order ap proving the same passed by the District In spector of Schools as well as the order dis missing the appeal passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner had assailed the findings on material facts recorded against him. The entire enquiry proceedings culminating in the order or ter mination of service was challenged asserting that no opportunity of proper hearing had been afforded to the petitioner claiming that no documents were supplied to him and the enquiry was mala fide being conducted by the person who was biased against him. The petitioner had also challenged the quantum of punishment awarded to him on the ground that it was discriminatory and disproportionate of the charges levelled against him. During the course of the hear ing the counsel for the petitioner had con fined his submissions to the grounds taken in the writ petition. 4. In this application for review an ef fort appears to have been made to enlarge the grounds taken in the writ petition. New facts as well as fresh grounds based upon them are sought to be utilised in support of the application for review. 5. It may be noticed that such facts as well as the grounds which were in fact avail able but they were not utilised or were not sought to be relied upon in support of the writ petition cannot be permitted to be utilised as a ground justifying a review of a final order disposing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The present application for review has been filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. A Divison Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Mr. 6. The present application for review has been filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. A Divison Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad and others v. Additional District Judge and others, 1978 ARC 118 had considered the implications arising under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by adding ex planation to it vide the Code of Civil Proce dure (Amendment) Act No. 104 of 1976 and had observed that "several decisions of the High Court had traced the source of the power of the High Court to review its order made under Article 226 to Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code but it appears to us that they are de hors that provision in the Civil Procedure Code. " The Division Bench, however, on the basis of the observations made in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv deo Singh and others v. Slate of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 clarified that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to review such an order indicating that the Apex Court its aforesaid decision had observed that 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 jus tice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 7. The Division Bench in its aforesaid decision had emphasised that the Supreme Court had stated in terms that the High Court has jurisdiction to review its order in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct palpable er rors. 8. It was observed by the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in its decision in the case of Selection Committee of admission to the Medical and Dental College, Bangalore v. M. P. Nagraj, AIR 1972 Mys 44 "that it is well settled that a decision is erroneous in law, is not ground for review and that it is only where such decision can be characterized as vitiated by an error ap parent on the face of the record it can be reviewed. " Further as indicated by the Cal cutta High Court in the case of Tinkari Sen v. Dulal Chand, AIR 1967 Cal 518 , a mistake simplicities either in the realm of fact or of law is no ground for review, 9. It seems to me that to justify a review an error apparent on the fact of the record which is manifest, patent, obvious and self-evident must be established Such a pal pable error, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad (supra) which requires to be rec tified to prevent miscarriage of justice fur nishes a valid ground for reviewing the final order passed by this Court disposing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Considering the facts and cir cumstances and my conclusions indicated hereinabove, I do not find any such palpable error which may justify reviewing of the final order dismissing the writ petition. 11. This application is, therefore, dis missed. Application dismissed. .