JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 28.06.2016 made in W.P.No.13779 of 2016, the writ petitioner has filed this Review petition seeking to review the same. 2. The writ petitioner originally filed W.P.No.13779 of 2016 seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 06.05.2013 and thereafter to the post of Deputy General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 19.02.2016, being the dates on which promotion to the said posts were given to his immediate junior S.P.Meyyappan in view of the punishment imposed on him being set aside by this Court in W.P.No.22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary and other attendant benefits. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 28.06.2016 with the following directions and observations: “16. After having put in prolonged service, always the Government Servant will desire to retire in the higher post in the level, in which, he could reach and definitely, one will aim to retire in the higher post, therefore, a person, who can reach such a higher post should not be deprived of the said position, especially, when the junior to the petitioner is promoted to the higher post, than the petitioner, to which, he is legally eligible, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, but, which has not been given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a limited mandamus could be granted to the effect that the petitioner shall be promoted as Assistant General Manager with effect from 06.05.2013 and the authority concerned shall make all necessary recommendation to the Government for granting exemption to the 17 petitioner to promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager with effect from 19.02.2016, when his junior was elevated. Such proposal should be sent immediately, so that, atleast, either he could retire as Deputy General Manager or the benefit could be accrued to him even after his retirement. In fact, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as a Deputy General Manager. 17. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Such proposal should be sent immediately, so that, atleast, either he could retire as Deputy General Manager or the benefit could be accrued to him even after his retirement. In fact, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as a Deputy General Manager. 17. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. It is needless to say that the retirement benefits should be immediately paid to the petitioner and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.715 of 2016, dated 20.06.2016, has to be scrupulously followed, directing the SIPCOT Management to set right the things immediately, as the petitioner is going to retire on 30.06.2016, so that he can retire as Deputy General Manager. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the direction of this Court in the order under review to make necessary recommendation to the Government for granting exemption to the Petitioner to promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 19.02.2016, when his junior was elevated, is redundant, as the Government has already granted exemption to his junior, is liable to be deleted. He pointed out that the exemption granted to his junior Meyyappan for the post of Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager pertaining to the experience requirement is automatically applicable to the Petitioner also, as the exemption is post-centric and not person-centric. 4. This Court heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and carefully gone through the order under review. 5. In the opinion of this Court, if the Petitioner is aggrieved by any portion of the order passed in the Writ Petition, the only remedy available is to file a Writ Appeal and he cannot seek clarification by way of a Review Petition. 6. To maintain a review application, the review petitioner must satisfy the three requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. i.e., (i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made; (ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and (iii) or any other sufficient reasons. 7. 7. The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained. 8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order under review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 9. In a similar circumstance, this Court, in the case of Shanmuga Sundara Nadar vs.Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 1988 (2) L.W. 57 (MAD.) has held as under: “The power to review is a restricted power which authorises the Court to look through the judgment not in order to substitute a fresh or second judgment but in order to correct it or improve it, because some material which it ought to have considered has escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. The Court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case over again because it feels then that the assessment of evidence, etc., done formerly was faulty or even incorrect. An erroneous view of evidence of law is not a ground for review. A wrong exposition of the law, a wrong application of the law and failure to apply the correct law have been held to be not a ground for review.” 10. In the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , the Apex Court, while considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., has held as under: “The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226.” 11. Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order in order to entertain the present Review Application. However, this order will not preclude the Petitioner from working out his other remedies in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.