JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court on 08.11.2016 in CWP No.1217 of 2016. 2. At the outset, it may be observed that the respondents have once been driven to un-necessary litigation by the petitioners and even while filing CWP No.1217 of 2016, this fact was duly recorded in para Nos. 23 and 24 of the judgment which read as under:- “23. It is unfortunate that the petitioners have repeatedly been compelled to approach this Court and within a span of five years have been constrained to file the seventh petition, earlier ones being: 1. CWP No. 5944/2010 decided on 23.4.2012 2. CWP No. 1062/2014 decided on 1.5.2014 3. CWP No. 3279/2015 decided on 6.8.2015 4. CWP No. 3945/2015 decided on 17.9.2015 5. CWP No. 4283/2015 decided on 30.11.2015 6. CWP No. 4755/2015 decided on 22.3.2016 24. That apart, the petitioners have time and again been compelled to approach the appellate authority against the action/inaction of the respondents.” 3. At this stage, it may be relevant to point out that vide impugned judgment of which review is sought, this Court had permitted the respondents to start the course in question i.e. D.EI.Ed Course for the Session 2015-17 subject to their transferring the land and built up area in the name of Educational Institute within a period of four weeks. 4. The only ground taken by the petitioners in the review petition is that this Court could not have varied the schedule of admission and the same was contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 617 as reiterated in a later judgment in Baba Shiv Nath Singh Shikshan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan vs. National Council for Teacher Education and others 2015(10) Scale 65. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 6. We are constrained to observe that by filing review petition, the petitioners have only sought to take advantage of their own wrong. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 6. We are constrained to observe that by filing review petition, the petitioners have only sought to take advantage of their own wrong. Indubitably, it was the decision taken by the petitioners in their 252 meeting held on 19.04.2016 to 02.05.2016 that was successfully assailed before this Court whereby the same was quashed and set aside vide the impugned judgment. 7. Now, in case the schedule, as is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners is perused, it would be noticed that in terms thereof all codal formalities were required to be completed by the end of March of the relevant academic year, whereas, in the instant case, respondent No.2 has itself taken a decision only in the 252 meeting held on 19.04.2016 to 02.05.2016 i.e. much later than the date fixed in schedule. Once, this Court has quashed and set aside the said decision, then obviously, the consequences would follow or else it would amount to permitting the petitioners to take advantage of their own wrong. 8. Even otherwise, the parameters with regard to maintainability/non-maintainability of writ petition for review are well settled and reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in Review Petition No.2 of 2016 titled Shri Yashpal Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 24.08.2016, wherein this Court after taking into consideration the law on the subject, laid down certain broad principles with regard to maintainability/non-maintainability of a petition for review and the same are as under:- (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record’ (iii) Any other sufficient reason. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (v) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. (x) Review is not maintainable on the basis of a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the Court or of a superior Court. (xi) While considering an application for review, court must confine its adjudication with regard to the material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (xii) Mere discovery of a new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The parties seeking review has also to show that such mater or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. 9. Apart from the above, we may also notice that the grounds as are now sought to be raised in this petition were not even taken before the learned writ Court and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise the same for the first time in this review petition. 10. Having said so, we find no merit in this review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, alongwith all pending applications, if any.