( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate, Mr. N. S. Joshi, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Gujarat High Secondary Service Tribunal in Application No. 296/2002, 153/2003, 84/2003, 203/2004 and 70/2005 being a final order after review application dated 14. 7. 2006. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Joshi, appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that in July,1991, permission was granted to the Ankur High School in Science Stream for Gujarati medium. The petitioner is declared surplus teacher, therefore, DEO has directed to absorb the petitioner in April,1992 in Ankur High School. The school management was not ready to accept the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached to the Tribunal and obtained protection, remained continued with Ankur High School upto September,2004. According to learned advocate, Mr. Joshi, petitioner was actually working with Ankur High School for the period April,1992 to 1997. The petitioner was a surplus teacher within the ratio of three teachers for each subject because petitioner was absorbed, at that occasion one Mr. Adresa teacher was working with Ankur High School and thereafter, petitioner was absorbed and 3rd teacher was Mr. B. . Mehta appointed by Ankur High School. He submitted that beyond three teacher for one subject, which outside the ratio and whenever question of transfer has arisen, it only relate to the teacher, who is working outside the ratio but, teacher should not have to be transferred, who is working within the ratio. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are working out side the ratio. On 1. 12. 2003, Ankur High School requested to the DEO to transfer the petitioner and on the same day, transfer order of petitioner was issued by the DEO in M. K. Secondary High School, Ahmedabad and on the same day, respondent No. 6 was appointed with Ankur High School. He submitted that there is some collusion between respondent Nos. 5 and 6, school management and DEO which ultimately transferred the petitioner being a surplus teacher from Ankur High School to M. K. Secondary High School and at present, petitioner is working in Mehsana district. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner entitled to remain continued with Ankur High School. He submitted that there is some collusion between respondent Nos. 5 and 6, school management and DEO which ultimately transferred the petitioner being a surplus teacher from Ankur High School to M. K. Secondary High School and at present, petitioner is working in Mehsana district. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner entitled to remain continued with Ankur High School. The order of transferring the petitioner from Ankur High School is bad, illegal and petitioner being a senior teacher in comparison to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, that aspect initially not decided by the Tribunal. In LPA, the Division Bench of this Court has directed to file review application which was filed by petitioner and Tribunal, while deciding the review application, corrected the error about seniority between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, he submitted that Tribunal should not have to put end when seniority has been considered in favour of petitioner but, Tribunal should have to grant further relief on the basis of seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, Tribunal has committed gross error in rejecting the review application. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi, submitted that one teacher cannot teach in both medium and it required two separate teachers. This basic requirement is also violated by school management and DEO. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate, Mr. Joshi, on behalf of petitioner. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate, Mr. Joshi and have also perused the order passed by Tribunal under review application. ( 5 ) AS per the direction given by this Court in LPA No. 593 of 2006 dated 24. 4. 2006, the petitioner has filed review application before the Tribunal for reviewing the earlier order dated 19. 12. 2005 passed in application Nos. 296/2002, 153/2003, 84/2003, 203/2004 and 70/2005. These applications were filed by the petitioner himself and they were disposed of by Tribunal by an judgment and order dated 19. 12. 2005. The Tribunal has dealt with each application separately and passed common order on 19. 12. 2005. It is necessary to note that present petitioner has not argued this review application before the Tribunal but, submitted pursis that the contention raised in all the previous matters, should be considered as contentions in review application as if the review application being a re-hearing of the main matter again by the Tribunal. 12. 2005. It is necessary to note that present petitioner has not argued this review application before the Tribunal but, submitted pursis that the contention raised in all the previous matters, should be considered as contentions in review application as if the review application being a re-hearing of the main matter again by the Tribunal. The annexures, documents, rejoinders and affidavits produced by him in the earlier matter should be treated as produced in review application. The arguments made by petitioner in the earlier matter should be treated as arguments made in this review application. The petitioner has not made any submission point wise on any ground. The power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal giving a re-hearing to the concerned party. However, because of the direction issued by this Court, the Tribunal has examined the matter while considering the review application. The Tribunal has considered that in earlier judgment and order dated 19. 12. 2005, in Para. 4, it was observed that ?shri Purohit was appointed in July,1991 before the applicant was ordered to join the opponent school as surplus teacher. Shri Trivedi joined the school on 1. 12. 1993. His original appointment is from 1992. His length of service is more than applicant s service. He can teach in English medium as he is more qualified than the applicant. As per DEO s order, he joined Ankur High School and Ankur High School has found him more suitable than the applicant-petitioner. While examining the factual aspect by the Tribunal, Shri Purohit-opponent No. 5, informed that he joined the school in July, 1991 but, it was honorary service, he was not covered under Direct Payment Scheme. His appointment was approved on 5th December, 1992 by the DEO. Therefore, seniority of Shri Purohit- opponent No. 5 can be considered from 5. 12. 1992. In respect to another teacher Shri Trivedi who joined the school on 1. 12. 1993, while the petitioner was ordered to join the school on 29. 4. 1992, therefore, according to the Tribunal, looking to the seniority in Ankur High School, the petitioner joined Ankur High School earlier than Shri Purohit and Shri Trivedi. This is the factual correction which required to be corrected in the original judgment, but there is no necessity to correct the date of appointment of Shri Trivedi and Shri Purohit. Therefore, the Tribunal has replaced para 4 as under:4. This is the factual correction which required to be corrected in the original judgment, but there is no necessity to correct the date of appointment of Shri Trivedi and Shri Purohit. Therefore, the Tribunal has replaced para 4 as under:4. Appointment of Shri Purohit was approved by the DEO on 05. 12. 1992 while Shri Trivedi-Opponent No. 6 has joined the opponent school as a surplus teacher on 01. 12. 1993. The applicant was originally a surplus teacher of Mehsana district and he was ordered to place in Ankur High School by order of the DEO dated 29. 04. 1992. The school has, from the beginning, opposed to absorb the applicant, and therefore, the applicant filed Application No. 104/92 in past and because of the interim order of the Tribunal the applicant was allowed to join Ankur High School subject to the condition that the school will make representation to the DEO regarding unsuitability of the applicant, his qualification, his different medium of instruction, the requirement of the school, etc. and if the DEO thinks fit he may pass the order to absorb the applicant in any other school on 31. 07. 1992. It has nothing to do with the seniority of other two teachers Shri Purohit and Shri Trivedi, opponents No. 5 and 6 respectively. He does not get any right over them by way of seniority, as he is the surplus teacher of some other school posted in the Ankur High School. It is also observed that the applicant has not mentioned anything regarding his previous Application No. 104/92 on the same point decided by the Tribunal on 19. 06. 2001. The applicant is the surplus teacher and he has no right to select a particular school, as his lien is in his parent school of Mehsana. But by way of interim arrangement only, the DEO has placed him as a surplus teacher in the Ankur High School. Such school can make representation to the DEO regarding the unsuitability of such surplus teacher. As per judgment of the Hon ble High Court in SCA No. 1065/02 and Ors. dated 09. 10. 2003, the school where there is vacancy should be given the list of surplus teachers in the same subject and the school has a right to select a teacher of their choice and as per the standard of the school. As per judgment of the Hon ble High Court in SCA No. 1065/02 and Ors. dated 09. 10. 2003, the school where there is vacancy should be given the list of surplus teachers in the same subject and the school has a right to select a teacher of their choice and as per the standard of the school. This view of the Hon ble High Court has been consistently followed by the department. ? ( 6 ) IN view of the para. 4 which has been replaced by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that ?looking to the unsuitability of the petitioner his qualification, his different medium of instruction, the requirement of the school, etc. if the DEO thinks fit he may pass the order to absorb the petitioner in any other school on 31. 07. 1992 but it has nothing to do with the seniority of other two teachers Shri Purohit and Shri Trivedi. The petitioner does not get any right over them by way of seniority, as he is the surplus teacher of some other school posted in the Ankur High School. The petitioner is a surplus teacher has not right to select a particular school, as his lien is in his parent school of Mehsana. But by way of interim arrangement only, the DEO has placed him as a surplus teacher in the Ankur High School. Therefore, such school can make representation to the DEO regarding the unsuitability of such surplus teacher, therefore, considering the decision given by this Court in SCA No. 1065/02 and Ors. dated 09. 10. 2003, the school where there is vacancy should be given the list of surplus teachers in the same subject and the school has a right to select a teacher of their choice and as per the standard of the school. ? This view of the High Court has been consistently followed by the department in SCA 9403 of 2003 dated 9. 8. 2004. In view of these observations made by the Tribunal, while considering the review application, the Tribunal has observed that seniority of petitioner does not get any right over the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 because the school where he was absorbed or placed is not his original school and other school can always make representation to the DEO regarding unsuitability of the surplus teacher. 5 and 6 because the school where he was absorbed or placed is not his original school and other school can always make representation to the DEO regarding unsuitability of the surplus teacher. The Ankur High School found other teacher more suitable to their requirements as the other teacher can teach in English medium or while the petitioner can teach in Gujarati medium only. ( 7 ) IN view of the observations made by the Tribunal while examining the review application in pursuance to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, according to my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly dealt with comprehensively the issue which has been raised by petitioner before the Tribunal in review application. ( 8 ) IT is necessary to consider that whatever the submissions made before this Court by learned advocate, Mr. Joshi, none of the submissions were made by petitioner before the Tribunal after filing the review application. Therefore, according to law, the submissions which were not made before the Tribunal, this Court cannot permit to raise before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to argue the question or facts which were not raised before the Tribunal at the relevant time when review application was heard by the Tribunal. However, this Court has permitted to make submissions to the learned Advocate, Mr. Joshi, on factual aspect challenging the order passed by Tribunal in review application but, looking to the observations made by Tribunal while correcting the factual error about the seniority of the petitioner, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that seniority of petitioner has no legal effect about his claim to remain with Ankur High School. Ultimately, according to decision of this Court, as referred by Tribunal, choice of the school to absorb the teacher which has been found suitable to the school but, teacher cannot compel the school to continue such teacher, who is not found suitable to the school. Therefore, petitioner s claim with the Ankur High School has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The DEO has rightly transferred the petitioner on 1. 12. 2003 in M. K. Secondary High School. For that, neither the school management nor the DEO have any collusion in between for helping to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, petitioner s claim with the Ankur High School has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The DEO has rightly transferred the petitioner on 1. 12. 2003 in M. K. Secondary High School. For that, neither the school management nor the DEO have any collusion in between for helping to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. If the action has been taken in accordance with law it might adversely affect to the petitioner, cannot result in collusion as alleged by learned advocate, Mr. Joshi. Therefore, according to my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly examined the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that there is no merits in the review application and, therefore, it has been rejected accordingly. ( 9 ) THIS Court is having very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Almost submissions of learned Advocate, Mr. Joshi, are based on factual aspect but, not based on any legal aspect. The submissions about policy and ratio are totally irrelevant when petitioner is not having legal right to remain with Ankur High School. The choice of the school is prevailed which teacher is suitable to the school. Accordingly, surplus teacher should have to be accommodated by DEO. Therefore, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and this Court cannot disturb the finding of fact on record while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The view taken by the Apex Court in case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I. O. B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and another, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1508 . Relevant observations are in Para. 19 which is quoted as under :19. The learned single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally reappreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a Tribunal, presided over by a Judicial Officer. The learned single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally reappreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a Tribunal, presided over by a Judicial Officer. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonably and possibly one taken. The Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in its criticism of the order of the learned single Judge and in ordering restoration of the Award of the Tribunal. On being taken through the findings of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of the learned single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench, we are of the view that the Industrial Tribunal had overwhelming materials which constituted ample and sufficient basis for recording its findings, as it did, and the manner of consideration undertaken, the objectivity of approach adopted and reasonableness of findings recorded seem to be unexceptionable. The only course, therefore, open to the writ Judge was to find out the satisfaction or otherwise of the relevant criteria laid down by this Court, before sustaining the claim of the canteen workmen, on the facts found and recorded by the fact-finding authority and not embark upon an exercise of re-assessing the evidence and arriving at findings of ones own, altogether giving a complete go-bye even to the facts specifically found by the Tribunal below. ? ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court and considering the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, according to my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly examined the issue. For that, Tribunal has not committed any error which requires any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in the present petition. For that, Tribunal has not committed any error which requires any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in the present petition. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.