JUDGMENT Manojit Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel representing respondent no.1. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. Petitioner seeks review of the order dated 14.12.2017 passed in WA 302/2014. The said writ appeal was filed by the respondent no.1 herein i.e. Shahina Bilkis as against the order dated 02.08.2014 passed in WP(C) 5708/2012 whereby her selection and appointment as Anganwadi Worker of No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre was quashed. The said writ petition was instituted by the review petitioner herein i.e. Musstt. Sufia Begum on ground that Shahina Bilkis was not residing in the village where No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre was located, thus, in violation of Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement dated 05.09.2009. 3. While allowing the writ appeal this Court took note of the relevant facts as well as the directions made by the Court in the two earlier writ petitions i.e. WP(C) 4932/2010 and WP(C) 185/2012, that had been instituted by the review petitioner on the same subject-matter. After noticing the facts, the writ appeal was disposed of with the following observations and directions : '6. We have gone through the records of the case. In our considered opinion, the matter requires to be judged from a different perspective. The issue to be decided is as to whether the appellant was a candidate residing within the specified area of No.134 Beltola Anganwadi Centre. The matter does not require consideration as to whether the appellant was a resident of Daualatpur village or Gohain Doloni village, in as much as, residency in a particular village was not a criterion of selection under the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. To reiterate, we are concerned with the expression given in Clause 2 which reads as 'Candidates must be local from within the specified area of the Anganwadi Centre.' In this regard, the Report of the CDPO, Karunabari, ICDS Project dated 20.10.2011 assumes great importance, which is a Report submitted on directions of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam following the order passed by the Court in the first writ petition i.e. WP(C) 4932/2010. This Report mentions that five households including the household of the appellant were included in No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre, although they were originally included under Gohain Doloni Anganwadi Centre. Such inclusion was made in the year 2009 by the then CDPO on consideration of the fact that the said five households were closer to the proposed No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. The said Report records that due to geographical conditions and being closer to No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre than the Gohain Doloni Anganwadi Centre, the said five households were included. The Report also recorded the existence of paddy field in between the location of the five households and the Gohain Doloni Anganwadi Centre. From available records, it is also seen that the five numbers of the families of Gohain Doloni, including the household of the appellant, figures in the Survey Register of No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. 7. The inclusion of the names of the five households in the Survey Register took place in the year 2009. We are not required to foray into the reason for inclusion of these five families in the concerned Anganwadi Centre. Such inclusion has also not been a matter of challenge in any proceedings. The Director of Social Welfare, Assam had relied upon the Report of the CDPO while passing the order dated 29.10.2011 in pursuance of the directions of this Court. The stand taken by the Director that the selection of the appellant was genuine, by relying upon the fact-finding and first-hand Report of the CDPO dated 20.10.2011, in our considered view, did not warrant interference. We, accordingly, hold so. The issue for determination being confined to residential status within the Anganwadi Centre in question and not in respect of being a resident of this or that village, we are wholly satisfied that at the relevant point of time the appellant was a candidate residing within the specified area of No. 134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. Her name also finds mention in the Survey Register of No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. We have no hesitation to allow the present appeal by imposing cost of `1,000/- on the Respondent No.5 herein for subjecting the appellant to unnecessary litigation and causing prejudice to her career prospects. Her name also finds mention in the Survey Register of No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. We have no hesitation to allow the present appeal by imposing cost of `1,000/- on the Respondent No.5 herein for subjecting the appellant to unnecessary litigation and causing prejudice to her career prospects. The judgment under appeal is set aside by directing the respondent authorities in the Social Welfare Department and Directorate to take immediate steps for restoring the appointment of the appellant as Anganwadi Worker in No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. Ordered accordingly.' 4. Thus, this Court recorded that the Report of the CDPO, Karunabari ICDS Project dated 20.10.2011 assumed great importance. This was a Report submitted at the instance of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, following the directions made in the first writ petition i.e. WP(C) 4932/2010. 5. This Report dated 20.10.2011, which the Director of Social Welfare relied upon, was not found to be interfered with in the writ appeal. As regards the residential status of Shahina Bilkis this Court expressed satisfaction that at the relevant point of time the writ appellant i.e. Shahina Bilkis was a candidate residing within the specified area of No.134 Beltola Chuburi Anganwadi Centre. This Court also recorded that the name of Shahina Bilkis also found mentioned in the Survey Register of the said Anganwadi Centre. 6. The present review petition is filed on the premises that on 03.04.2018 an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 had been made by the review petitioner Musstt. Sufia Begum seeking such information as under : '(1) Whether the five numbers of households of the 133 No Gohaindoloni Pachimpara Anganwadi Centre was merged with the 134 No Beltola Anganwadi Centre prior to issuance of advertisement of Anganwadi worker dated 05-09-2009 or after the advertisement was issued. Kindly furnish the report as well as order of the Government of such inclusion of the above 134 No Beltola Anganwadi Centre. (2) Whether the CDPO has power to merge any household of any Anganwadi Centre to another Anganwadi Centre.' 7. Kindly furnish the report as well as order of the Government of such inclusion of the above 134 No Beltola Anganwadi Centre. (2) Whether the CDPO has power to merge any household of any Anganwadi Centre to another Anganwadi Centre.' 7. Reply was received on 19.04.2018 with the note of the i/c Child Development Project Officer, Karunabari ICDS Project, Laluk, Lakhimpur to the effect that no records of the merger of five numbers of households could be traced out in the office and it was also not known whether the five numbers of households of 133 No. Gohain Doloni Pachimpara Anganwadi Centre had merged with 134 No. Beltola Anganwadi Centre prior to issuance of the Advertisement dated 05.09.2009 or thereafter. The i/c CDPO also stated that he is unable to furnish the Report as well as the order of the Government with regard to inclusion of the above 134 No. Beltola Anganwadi Centre. It was also stated that CDPO has no power to merge any household of any Anganwadi Centre to another Anganwadi Centre. 8. From the above it is contended that the judgment and order passed in the writ appeal is liable to be reviewed as this Court had relied upon the Report of the CDPO dated 20.10.2011, which is a false and fabricated Report. 9. Before we answer as to whether the present review petition can be entertained or not, we may observe that an application for review of judgment under Article 226 must be in the spirit of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The scope of review is limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed or there has been a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot partake the character of an appeal, that is, for re-hearing and correcting a judgment. The fact that a decision is erroneous on merit is no ground for review. Under the review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for this Court to consider an entirely new substratum of issues. The power of review would be available only within the parameters prescribed under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that a decision is erroneous on merit is no ground for review. Under the review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for this Court to consider an entirely new substratum of issues. The power of review would be available only within the parameters prescribed under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On a plea taken that the decision is erroneous on merit due to wrong interpretation of law or because of illegal and erroneous finding, whether on fact or in law, cannot be a ground for review. 10. Having regard to the above it is seen that the application under the Right to Information Act was made on 03.04.2018, that is, well after order was passed in the writ appeal. This fact alone shows that it had never been the case of the review petitioner in any of the writ petitions or in the writ appeal that the Report of the CDPO dated 20.10.2011 was false and fabricated. Therefore, only for the purpose of seeking review the petitioner cannot now be permitted to say that the Report dated 20.10.2011 is false and is such an important matter which could not be discovered and/or was not within her knowledge even after exercise of due diligence and, therefore, could not be produced when the order in the writ appeal was passed. In this connection we may add that in the reply to the RTI application it is nowhere indicated that the Report of the CDPO dated 20.10.2011 is a false and fabricated Report, save and except, that no records with regard to merger of the five households could be traced out at the office concerned. 11. For the reasons above and having regard to the recognized parameters for seeking review, we are of the considered opinion that no ground, whatsoever, is made out for review of the order 14.12.2017 passed in WA 302/2014. By the present petition, this Court has been called upon to reappraise and re-appreciate the facts, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. 12. We, therefore, find no merit in the present review petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.