JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This review petitioner is for review of the order dtd.12.10.2017 passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 whereby and where under this court has declined to interfere with the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same. 2. The ground for review as per the pleading made in the review petition is that the petitioner has not failed rather he has been made to fail in the process of selection for promotion and the promotion has been granted in favour of Sri Devata, although the same has been rectified by strucking down his order of promotion but according to him irregularity has been committed, as such what is the guaranty that in future no irregularity shall not be committed. 3. Having heard the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the review petition this Court is of the view that the scope of review is very limited, it is not in dispute that the power to review is the creation of a statue. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Review is not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration had resulted in miscarriage of justice, then certainly this can be said to be ground for review, but the mere fact that different views on the same subject are possible, cannot be said to be a ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Court of Law. This Court has considered the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court regarding width and scope of power of review as has been rendered in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 particularly at paragraph 32 which reads as under:- “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 particularly at paragraph 32 which reads as under:- “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasize that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XLVII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” In the case of Shivdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 , in a review petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In doing so, the Court was only upholding the principles of natural justice. This decision indicates that the Court's power of review while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sow. Chandra Kanta and Another Vs. Sheik Habib reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 it has been held as follows:- “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. Chandra Kanta and Another Vs. Sheik Habib reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 it has been held as follows:- “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. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.” It is the settled proposition as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments discussed herein above that the scope of review which can only be done in case of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and for any other sufficient reason and in the light of this legal position the fact of this review petition needs to be appreciated. 4. This court is to see as to whether the review petitioner has been able to make out a case for review of the order passed by this Court. After appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the review petitioner it is evident that two grounds have been taken by him, i.e. (i) That he has been made to fail in the selection process and (ii) Second ground is that Mr. Devata has been granted promotion illegally, although, according to him, even if it has been rectified subsequently, then what is the guaranty that it will not reoccur. This court before appreciating his argument thinks it proper to discuss the factual aspect of the case which the petitioner had raised in the writ petition which relates to declaring the selection made to the post of Divisional Accountant pursuant to third D.T. Examination conducted by CESU in April 2008 as bad and illegal. The grievance of the petitioner was that he although was most eligible person to be promoted but not promoted, rather promotion has been granted in favour of Mr. The grievance of the petitioner was that he although was most eligible person to be promoted but not promoted, rather promotion has been granted in favour of Mr. Devata who according to him is not eligible at all because his eligibility has been decided by this court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2728 of 2010 but ignoring the finding given therein, he has been granted promotion. This court, after appreciating the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the pleadings made by the opposite parties in their counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that chance for consideration of selection has been given to the petitioner but he has not found to be successful, has not entertained his claim. So far as the case of Devata is concerned, it was stated in the counter affidavit that although he was granted promotion but subsequently when the authorities have realized that mistake has been committed by granting him promotion then it has been rectified. This Court after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and considering the fact that the petitioner has been allowed chance for consideration of his case in which he has been declared unsuccessful and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is making claim on the basis of the promotion granted in favour of Mr. Devata but subsequently the order of promotion of Mr. Devata has been cancelled, is of the view that the petitioner, after the order of cancellation of the promotion of Mr. Devata, cannot take the ground that he has been discriminated and given go bye by considering the promotion of Mr. Devata. Accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed. 5. The petitioner contends in the instant review petition that he has been made to declare fail but the same cannot be a ground of review because the court is supposed to go by the pleading and the specific stand taken by the CESU (opposite party No.1) that in the selection process he has been declared unsuccessful and this court, while disposing of the writ petition, has taken into consideration the said plea and declined to interfere with the decision of the selection committee. Further the petitioner was making claim on the basis of the promotion granted in favour of Mr. Devata but the order of promotion of Mr. Further the petitioner was making claim on the basis of the promotion granted in favour of Mr. Devata but the order of promotion of Mr. Devata has also subsequently been cancelled, hence the petitioner cannot take the plea of discrimination on the basis of promotion order of Mr. Devata even after its cancellation. 6. The petitioner contends in this review petition that even assuming that irregularities have been committed and subsequently rectified but what is the guaranty that in future irregularity cannot reoccur, that also cannot be a ground to review the order passed in the writ petition. 7. This court after taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner and relying upon the legal proposition as stated herein above, is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for review of the order passed by this court on 12.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 since the petitioner has not been able to brought new matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was passed and could not be able to point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other reason, hence according to the considered view of this court, it is not a fit case to review the order passed by this court on 12.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.