JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. By the instant review petition the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4363 of 2014 has been sought to be reviewed on the ground that the authorities have earlier appointed grandsons of the displaced persons under the Rehabilitation Scheme, as such the order be reviewed with a direction to the authorities to appoint the petitioner, who is also grandson of the displaced person, under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 2. We, on hearing the writ petition, have declined to interfere with the writ petition to grant relief to the petitioner under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 on the ground that the petitioner being the grandson is not entitled under the scheme to get an appointment who is not coming under definition of ‘family’ as defined in the policy. 3. The petitioner has filed the review petition on the strength of a document which has been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act by stating in the application that the opposite parties have appointed grandsons in so many cases, as such the order be reviewed with a direction to the authorities to appoint him since he is also happens to be the grandson and dependent of the displaced person. 4. It is settled that there is no principle to grant benefit on the basis of the negative equality since Article 14 of the Constitution of India is meant for positive equality and if anything has been done by the authority contrary to the provision of the statute/scheme, no benefit can be derived by the party by the court of law. 5. We have already passed the order while disposing of the writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit under the policy, 2007 since he is not coming under the parameter of ‘family’, hence mainly on the fact that the other persons have been granted the benefit who happens to be grandsons of displaced persons, no positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner and the same cannot be a ground to review the order which has been passed by us in exercise of power conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. Moreover, jurisdiction of the review is very limited which can only be exercised when there is error apparent on the face of the record or a document which has not been brought on record with due diligence but no such reason is canvassed in the review application. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter and considering the scope of review, we are not inclined to entertain this review application. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.