JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 21.09.2020 whereby Misc. Petition No. 2222/2020 has been dismissed and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur dated 10.01.2020 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others vs. South Eastern Central Railway and others in Civil Appeal No. 11360-11363 of 2018. He further submits that this Court has again committed an error in relying upon the circular dated 10.01.2014 and that the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47 covers the point in the petitioner's favour. 3. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) has rightly been relied upon and the matter does not fall within the limited scope of review and in this regard he has relied upon the judgment in the matters of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, 2013 (8) SCC 320 and Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others, 2005 (6) SCC 651 . 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that before the Tribunal 20% candidates, who were called for the documents verification, had prayed for their consideration for filling up the vacant posts. The same issue was involved in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) in respect of the selection process conducted by the review petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal had directed the petitioners to grant the same benefit to the respondents-candidates which was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra). This Court while passing the order dated 21.09.2020 has already examined the above ground in respect of the applicability of the judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) and has rejected the similar contentions of the review petitioners. The circular dated 10.01.2014 has also been duly noticed and considered by this Court. This Court while passing the order dated 21.09.2020 has already examined the above ground in respect of the applicability of the judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) and has rejected the similar contentions of the review petitioners. The circular dated 10.01.2014 has also been duly noticed and considered by this Court. The judgment in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is in respect of filling of the vacancy which arose due to non-joining of the selected candidates and subsequent closure of the process of final selection. The said judgment has been rendered in different factual context. The grounds which petitioners are raising are not available for exercising limited power of review as in the guise of the review petition, the petitioners are seeking to reopen the matter and rehearing of the petition. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma (supra) has summarized the principles as to when the review jurisdiction can be exercised and when review is not maintainable as under: "20.1. 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. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Mosi Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2 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, 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 reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) 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 petit ion. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 5. The present petition does not fall under any of the above criteria wherein the review jurisdiction can be exercised. The Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) has held that in a review petition it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach to a different conclusion, even if that is possible. No review is permissible unless there is error apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, the arguments which the counsel for the petitioners has advanced, require long drawn process of reasoning which itself is a ground for rejecting the review petition. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that no ground for review is made out. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.