Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition the petitioner is seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 15794/2003 decided on 11. 1. 2005. ( 2. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is an employee of School Education Department though serving in a school in tribal area. As per the policy annexure A/1 which was filed along with the writ petition, the arrangement was made that there will be one unit in a block and the school which come in the area belonging to the Tribal Welfare Department. Those schools shall be deemed to be transferred to the said department. However, the schools in other area shall be deemed to be in the School Education Department and therefore since the petitioner though he was an employee of School Education Department and serving in that department, should be treated as an employee of the School Education Department and the school in which he was serving may not be treated as a school of Tribal Welfare Department. ( 3. ) SHRI Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was projected before writ court in the manner that the case is of deputation but as a matter of fact the policy annexure A/1 dated 13. 1. 1995, Annexure A/3 dated 24. 6. 1999, Annexure A/4 dated 15. 3. 2000 and annexure A/5 dated 2. 2. 2000 were under challenge. The contention of learned Counsel is that the respondent was construing its own policy in incorrect manner. Indeed a block should be made as a unit, but, the State Government was making the district as a unit which is contrary to the above said policy. Thus, the contention of learned Counsel is that since the petitioner was serving in a school, the State Government ought to have created the unit at the block level and not at the district level and therefore the promotional avenues of the petitioner are seriously jeopardized by treating the district as a unit and now the State Government is trying to transfer all the schools to the Tribal Department, treating the Mandla district to be a Tribal district, In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on M. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr. AIR2000 SC 540 , JT2000 (1 )SC 26 , 2000 (1 )KLT799 (SC ), (2000 )II MLJ46 (SC ), 2000 (1 )SCALE14 , (2000 )1 SCC666 , [2000 ]1 SCR33 , Bharat Builder Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Parijat Flat Owners Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (1995) 5 SCC 622, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal And Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 578. It has been contended by the learned Counsel, on the basis of these decisions that if a counsel wrongly explained the real position to Court this could be a ground for review. ( 4. ) ON the other hand it has been submitted by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate that this Court specifically held that the petitioner is an employee of School Education Department and his seniority should be kept in the School Education Department only. In fact, the petitioner is an employee of the School Education Department, however, he would be given an option to opt the service to be retained either in the Tribal Department or in School Education Department and in that regard later on a circular has been issued by the state Government which has been filed along with the application to vacate the stay order. That circular is annexure R/1 dated 3. 1. 2006. In support of his contention, learned Govt. Advocate has placed reliance on Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR2000 SC 84 , (2000 )2 CALLT40 (SC ), JT1999 (8 )SC 578 , 1999 (7 )SCALE22 , (1999 )9 SCC596 , [1999 ]supp4 SCR302 , 2000 (2 )SLJ108 (SC ) and has submitted that no case for review is made out. ( 5. ) IN reply Shri Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case petitioner opt for School Education Department, he would require to go within the district and it would be in contravention to the statutory service rules. Facing this tight situation, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that in any manner the service condition of the petitioner would not be affected. ( 6. ) CONSIDERED the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties. ( 7. ) THIS Court in the order deciding the writ petition categorically held and directed respondents to maintain the seniority of the petitioner in the same manner as if he would have been serving in School Education Department. ( 6. ) CONSIDERED the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties. ( 7. ) THIS Court in the order deciding the writ petition categorically held and directed respondents to maintain the seniority of the petitioner in the same manner as if he would have been serving in School Education Department. It was also made clear that writ petitioners may also be given promotion in the same manner as they would have been in School Education Department. It was also held that if the School Education Department has not given seniority and promotion to the writ petitioners, the same may be given to them within in period of four months. Inter alia it was held that the employees who are junior to the writ petitioners may not be given promotion over them merely on the ground that the petitioners are serving on deputation in Tribal Welfare Department. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties submitted that the petitioner is still an employee of the School Education Department and if that is the position even if he is placed in a school under the said School Education Department nearby the district as stated by learned Govt. Advocate, his seniority will not at all be affected and he will be given promotion according to the direction given by this Court in the writ petition. ( 9. ) THE decision of M. M. Thomas (supra) speaks about the powers of High Court under Article 215 and this Court can review its own judgment to correct the error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has already held that the promotion avenues of the petitioner will not be jeopardized he is still an employee of School Education Department and therefore there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record. On the same principle, the decision of Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal (supra) and Bharat Builder Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable. ( 10. ) I have given my bestowed and anxious consideration to the order passed by me in the said writ petition which is under challenge in this review petition, however I do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record. ( 11. ) THIS review petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.