JUDGMENT 1. - The instant review petition has been filed against the judgment and order of this Court dated 2-4-98 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1272/1995, by which the writ petition of the non-party has been allowed by this Court setting aside the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Tribunal dated 20-4-95, by which the order of the discharge of the petitioner during the pendency of his probation period has been set-aside. 2. The learned Tribunal has set aside the order of discharge on two grounds, firstly, interpreting the provisions of the Standing Order 5/72 which required the participation of the State in the process of termination of services of the employees of the institution and, secondly, holding that the termination order was punitive. Both the issues were raised by the opposite party and petitioner's counsel had sufficient opportunity to meet it as is evident from the said judgment. The petitioner had filed review petition on the ground that this Court has erred in appreciating the law which has resulted in great injustice to the petitioner and the facts mentioned in the review petition have not been considered while deciding the controversy. However, without disclosing what are the facts which have not been considered, the petitioner had relied upon various statutory provisions and interpretation of the Standing Order No. 5/72. 3. I fail to understand how it is an error apparent on the face of record and what is that point which had been agitated before this Court while hearing of the writ petition and not been considered. In fact, the review petition has been filed by the petitioner by changing his counsel and is no affidavit by the former counsel Mr. S. K. Malik that he had agitated a particular issue which has not been dealt with by this Court. 4. In Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board v. N. Rajureddiar, AIR 1997 SC 1005 , the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of filing a review petition by changing the counsel and imposed an exorbitant cost and observed that filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy hands for purity of administration of law and solitary and healthy practice. 4. In Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board v. N. Rajureddiar, AIR 1997 SC 1005 , the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of filing a review petition by changing the counsel and imposed an exorbitant cost and observed that filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy hands for purity of administration of law and solitary and healthy practice. The reason for making such an observation is that the new counsel would not be in a position to say as to what had transpired earlier and unless it is pointed out as what was agitated which has not been dealt with by the Court, filing review petition in such an irresponsible manner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Even if a party takes several grounds in the writ petition and does not agitate the same at the time of argument, the Court is not bound to answer such points taken in the writ petition but not agitated. (Vide Union of India v. N.V. Phannendran, 1995 (6) SCC 45 . Similarly, in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, 1997 (7) SCC 339 : ( AIR 1997 SC 2847 ) the Apex Court observed that "the Courts should refrain from expressing opinion on point not raised or not fully and effectively argued by the counsel on either side" for the reason "that the opposite side did not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that behalf." 6. In Gopal Bondha Biswal v. Krishna Chand Mohanti, 1998 (4) SCC 447 , the Apex Court has held that the scope of review under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. There is very limited and it cannot be extended under the garb of review for rehearing of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to what was the issue which had been agitated but was not dealt with by the Court. 7. Sri Mathur has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, 1998 (4) SCC 1 . 7. Sri Mathur has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, 1998 (4) SCC 1 . I fail to understand how the said judgment can be of any help to the petitioner as in the said case, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that the larger Bench can reconsider the issue decided earlier by a Court. In fact it was not a case of review. It was a case of reconsideration by the Larger Bench of the issue decided earlier by a Court. The scope of review has always been understood by the Court to be very limited. In Sidharamappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1952 Bom 287 , the Court considered the power of review under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and observed that the power of review can be resorted to correct "error apparent on the face of record" and it cannot certainly be resorted to correct a "mistake apparent from the record" as the Court has spelled out the distinction between the two. In Satya Narain Laxmi Narain Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhawanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 , the Apex Court observed that an error, which has to be established by a long drawn process of reason on point on which may conceivably be two opinions, cannot be said to be an error on the face of record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Thus, a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which may conceivably be two opinions. (Vide T.S. Balarana, Income-tax Officer v. Volkart Bros., Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 2204 1971 Tax LR 1508 ). 8. In the instant case, the petitioner's game has been get the case reopened on merit and he is asking the Court to re-appreciate the legal provisions which is not permissible in the review petition. The practice of filing the review petition by change of counsel is deprecated. However. looking to the circumstances that petitioner has already been discharged from service, the cost is not imposed otherwise it is a fit case for imposing an exorbitant cost. 9. The practice of filing the review petition by change of counsel is deprecated. However. looking to the circumstances that petitioner has already been discharged from service, the cost is not imposed otherwise it is a fit case for imposing an exorbitant cost. 9. The review petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******