Judgment :- (K.C. Bhanu,J.) Petitioner herein who is the 5th respondent in W.P.No.18043 of 2004, filed this review petition under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) aggrieved by the order, dated 24-02-2005, in W.P.No.18043 of 2004. 2. The petitioner herein along with four others filed O.A.No.7464 of 2002 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for selection as per the orders issued in O.A.No.639 of 1999 and batch, dated 18-08-1999 and also O.A.No.8427 of 2000 and batch, dated 07-06-2002. The Tribunal, by its judgment, dated 27-02-2004 held thus: “Therefore, the O.As. are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the applicants as per the orders issued in O.A.No.639 of 1999 and batch, dated 18-08-1999 and also O.A.No.8427 of 2000 and batch, dated 07-06-2002 by setting aside the impugned Memo No.520/R&T/Admn.1/2002, dated 4th and 5th July, 2002 in O.A.6743 of 2002. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.As are disposed of accordingly. In view of disposal of the main O.As., M.As. stand disposed of.” 3. Challenging the impugned judgment, the Government filed Writ Petition. After hearing both sides, this Court passed the order, dated 24-02-2005, inter alia holding that the present petitioner, O.C./P.E. from Hyderabad city secured 171.25 marks, that none of the other candidates in O.C. either in merit or O.C./P.E. secured less than the marks secured by the present petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled for appointment. With certain other directions in respect of the respondents in the writ petition, this Court disposed of the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, this review has been filed. 4. Three grounds have been raised in this review petition. Firstly, the respondents have to compute the total number of vacancies available as on the date of notification i.e., 11-03-1998, which has not considered by this Court in the impugned judgment. Secondly, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that about 90 more vacancies arose by 11-03-1998 and that aspect has not been considered. Thirdly, the case of the petitioner has to be taken into consideration for 8 vacancies, which were directed to be filled in, in the next notification. 5. Secondly, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that about 90 more vacancies arose by 11-03-1998 and that aspect has not been considered. Thirdly, the case of the petitioner has to be taken into consideration for 8 vacancies, which were directed to be filled in, in the next notification. 5. Section 114 of the CPC confers substantive right of review in certain circumstances and Order XLVII lays down procedure therefor. The normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or order is made, the Court ceases to have control over the matter. But, in certain circumstances court may reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong is done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. It may also be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made. 6. This being a petition under Section 114 of CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SHIVDEO SINGH AND OTHERS V STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1963 SC 1909 , held thus: “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 justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.” From the above decision, it is clear that unless the petitioner shows that a miscarriage of justice was done to him or this Court committed a grave and palpable error in passing the impugned judgment, review cannot be allowed. 7. Similarly, in another decision reported in HARIDAS DAS V SMT. 7. Similarly, in another decision reported in HARIDAS DAS V SMT. USHA RANI BANIK AND OTHERS 2006) 4 SCC 78, it was held thus: “A perusal or Order XLVII, Rule 1 show that review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.” 8. Similarly, in another decision reported in SOW CHANDRAKANTA AND ANOTHER V SHAIK HABIB AIR 1975 SC 1500 , it was held thus: “A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.” 9. Similarly, in another decision reported in ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA V ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA AND OTHERS AIR 1979 SC 1047 , it was held thus: “But, there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analoguous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.” 10. Similarly, in another decision reported in M/S NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD V LT.GOVERNOR OF DELHI AIR 1980 SC 674 , it was held thus: “An error apparent on the face of the record exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.” 11. The principles, which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: 1. On the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence is not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the petitioner at the time when the order was made. 2. It can be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. 3. To correct the patent error of law or fact which stares in the face. 4. The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. 5. An erroneous order/judgment can not be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. 6. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. While the former can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 7. While exercising the power of review, the court cannot sit in appeal over its judgment. 8. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts of the legal position. 12. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the judgment under challenge requires re-consideration by way of review. 13. First ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondents have to compute the total number of vacancies available as on the date of notification i.e., 11-03-1998, which has not considered by this Court in the impugned judgment. But, as seen from the judgment of the Tribunal as well as this Court, there is no material available on record to show that the competent authority has not computed total number of vacancies available as on the date of notification i.e., 11-03-1998. Therefore, in the absence of the pleading and evidence, a new plea cannot be entertained in this review petition. Therefore, in the absence of the pleading and evidence, a new plea cannot be entertained in this review petition. Hence, this cannot be taken as a ground to review the judgment. 14. Second ground urged by the petitioner is that during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that about 90 more vacancies arose by 11-03-1998 and in such a case, the case of the petitioner will come up for consideration. After the impugned notification, some vacancies arose, but the vacancies subsequent to notification cannot be taken into consideration. The number of vacancies as notified on 11-03-1998 have to be filled in after following the due procedure. Therefore, this ground is also cannot be said to be a valid ground to review the judgment. 15. Third ground urged by the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner has to be taken into consideration for 8 vacancies, which were directed to be filled in, in the next notification. Such a course is not permissible under law because he has to fulfill the requisite qualifications in pursuance of the subsequent notification and has to compete with the other candidates. 16. It is not the case of the review petitioner that the respondents herein have not notified all the vacancies available as on the date of notification i.e., 11-03-1998 and the total number of vacancies as notified have not been filled up. 17. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a representation was made by the petitioner to the Government to consider his case in accordance with law. On the other hand, Mr. S. Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is for the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 18. While exercising the powers under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, this Court has to see whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record or not. There is no need to give any further direction. However, it is made clear that it is for the Government to take appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. 19. There is no need to give any further direction. However, it is made clear that it is for the Government to take appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the judgment and therefore, the review petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the Review WPMP is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.