JUDGMENT & ORDER : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department for the respondents. 2. The petitioners seek review of the order dated 8.8.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2017 by which the writ petition was closed. 3. The order dated 08.08.2017 may be re-produced below for ready perusal:— “Ms. S. Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.02.2016, the petitioners have participated in the written test conducted for filling up 87 vacancies of Extension Officer (Industries) but however, pursuant to the process, the respondents have neither completed the selection process nor declared the results. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Industries Department submits that he has received instruction that the previous selection process has been cancelled and a fresh selection process will be undertaken. He also submits that the application submitted by the petitioners earlier shall also be treated as valid. Ms. S. Dasgupta on the other hand prays that she may be granted an opportunity to amend the writ petition. However, considering the fact that the respondents intend to conduct the selection process afresh by considering the applications for the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners time to amend the writ petition. In view of submission of Dr. B. Ahmed on instructions, the writ petition stands closed.” 4. Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondents concerned had issued the advertisements dated 13.02.2016 inviting applications from interested candidates for filling up the post of Extension Officers (Industries) and thereafter a written examination conducted on 28.02.2016, the respondents cannot simply cancel the selection process on the ground that a fresh selection will be conducted and the petitioners permitted to participate. He submits that since the petitioners had participated in the written examination, the respondents are required to complete the selection process. In this connection he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:— 1. State of U.P v. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3 SCC 699 . 2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 . 3. Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741 : AIR 2005 SC 592 . 4. In this connection he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:— 1. State of U.P v. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3 SCC 699 . 2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 . 3. Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741 : AIR 2005 SC 592 . 4. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385 : AIR 2006 SC 1647 . 5. Inderpreet Singh Kahion v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356 : AIR 2006 SC 2571 . 6. N.T Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 . 5. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners have not made out any case for review of the order dated 08.08.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2017. He submits that after the respondents conducted the written test, more than 1½ years had passed without any progress and considering other aspects as well, fresh selection process was decided to be conducted. No select list on the written test has been published and no personal interview held. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any substantive grievance moreso, when they will be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process without asking fresh application from them. He submits that pursuant to the decision of the respondents to conduct fresh selection, the respondents are currently looking for a service provider to conduct the selection test since the selection process is most cumbersome as it will involve a large number of candidates participating. He reiterates that the petitioners will be allowed to participate in the fresh selection to be conducted by treating the earlier applications submitted by them as valid applications. He thus submits that there being no grounds for review of the order dated 08.08.2017, the review petition should be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The basic grounds for review of an order as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure is that there must be an error apparent on the face of the record or existence of certain materials which could not produced at the relevant time before the Court despite due diligence or for any other cogent and sufficient reason requiring review of the order. The petitioners in the instant case have basically relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court as the grounds for reviewing the order dated 08.08.2017 Therefore, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners may be adverted to. 7. In the case of Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra), the Apex Court held that the relief of appointment based on the panel list which expired during the pendency of the litigation cannot be the ground for denying appointment to those whose names appeared in the panel list. Applying the ratio to the instant case, it may be seen that the selection process did not progress beyond the written test which was conducted on 28.02.2016 and therefore, there is no occasion for publishing a select list or a panel list. As such, the case of Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. 8. In the case of Lily Thomas (Supra), the Apex Court held that review is a creation of statute. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and a review is also not an appeal in disguise. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration would result in miscarriage of justice, rectifying the error would be warranted and justified. Applying the ratio to the instant case, it can be seen that the review petitioners have not pointed out any error so as to even assume that its perpetration would result in miscarriage of justice. On facts, it may be seen that the respondents have decided to cancel the earlier selection process before it was completed and conduct a fresh selection process while maintaining that the petitioners would be allowed to participate on the basis of the applications they submitted earlier. Therefore, the case cited by the learned counsel is only misplaced. 9. In the case of Netaji Cricket Club (Supra), the Apex Court had reiterated the scope and ambit of review as provided under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 47 Rule (1) of the same Code. Therefore, the case cited by the learned counsel is only misplaced. 9. In the case of Netaji Cricket Club (Supra), the Apex Court had reiterated the scope and ambit of review as provided under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 47 Rule (1) of the same Code. As may be noticed, there can be no discovery of any new piece of evidence so as to construe an error apparent on the face of the record. Existence of sufficient reasons as contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be just presumed since the petitioners have not pointed out from the facts of the case as to what can be construed as sufficient reason to warrant review of the order dated 08.08.2017 Therefore, the case of Netaji Cricket Club (Supra) is also found to be not applicable to the case of the petitioners. 10. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, consists of 2 parts. The first part is discretionary and therefore, the Court may permit or refuse amendment of the pleadings. The second part is imperative and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Applying the ratio to the instant case, it can be seen that firstly, no application has been filed by the petitioners seeking amendment with the grounds for seeking such amendment. It can also be seen that the controversy sought to be presented by the petitioners is with regard to non-completion of the selection process while the respondents have taken the decision to go for a fresh selection while allowing their participation. Therefore, the fact situations are not similar and therefore, the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (Supra) cannot be applied. 11. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahion (Supra), the Apex Court by taking into account the fact that the manipulations and irregularities said to have been committed during selection process would not justify cancellation of the entire selection process held that instead of cancelling the entire process, segregation of the tainted from the non-tainted was called for. 11. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahion (Supra), the Apex Court by taking into account the fact that the manipulations and irregularities said to have been committed during selection process would not justify cancellation of the entire selection process held that instead of cancelling the entire process, segregation of the tainted from the non-tainted was called for. As may be noticed, such is not the case in the present case and therefore, the decision as referred to by the petitioners too has no application to the instant case. 12. In the case of N.T Devin Katti (Supra), the Apex Court held that a candidate has the right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and acquires a vested right if he or she is eligible and qualified in accordance with the relevant rules in existence on the date of advertisement. In the present case, as may be noticed, the respondents have no where taken the stand that the petitioners would be ineligible for the fresh selection or that the rules and norms would be varied so as to have the apprehension of ousting their candidature. Therefore, the referred decision also has no application. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. D. Dastagiri Reported in (2003) 5 SCC 373 held that even if a selection process is completed with select list only remaining to be published, the candidates cannot have the indefeasible right to seek a direction for publication of the merit list or even to the extent of being appointed by virtue of being in the merit list. The Apex Court opined that the Government is entitled to take a policy decision which of course should be based on fair and sound principles in deciding to fill up or not to fill up the post in question. 14. In the result, upon considering the matter in its entirety, I do not find any grounds for reviewing the order dated 08.08.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2017 and as such, the review petition stands dismissed.