JUDGMENT : (M.V. Muralidaran, J.) : [1] Review Application No.7 of 2022 has been filed to review the order dated 1.2.2022 passed in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022. Review Application No.8 of 2022 has been filed to review the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020. [2] The respondent Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (JNIMS) in W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 is the review applicant. [3] MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 has been filed by the review applicant for extension of time for a period of two months to comply with the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by this Court in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021. By the order dated 1.2.2022, this Court disposed of MC (WP) No.22 of 2022. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: “After hearing the parties, MC [W.P.(C)] No.22 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by granting extension of time of 4 (four) weeks for implementing the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in MC [W.P.(C)] No.315 of 2021 within four weeks’ time from today. The extension is also granted for accommodating both the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 in the post of Associate Professor in Community Medicine without holding a fresh DPC. However, for the substantive post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine which arose in the year 2019 the same shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017. The applicants are also directed to make up-gradation of the eligible incumbents including the applicants in MC [WP(C)] No.34 of 2022 under the Time Scale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2022 within the extended period. It is also made clear that the National Medical Commission Rules, which is to come into effect from 17.02.2022 in W.P. (C) No.638 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No.231 of 2020 for the post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine as well as those incumbents who are eligible under the Time Scale Promotion by calculating 44% of the total regular post (i.e. 22% for the year 2021 and 22% for the year 2022). The parties are also directed that one post of Professor in Community Medicine shall not be filled up which shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017. Accordingly, these Misc. The parties are also directed that one post of Professor in Community Medicine shall not be filled up which shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017. Accordingly, these Misc. Applications are disposed of.” [4] MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 has been filed by the review applicant to recall/modify the order dated 18.5.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.231 of 2021. By the order dated 20.12.2021, MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 has been disposed of. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim order dated 18.05.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 is a blanket order not to fill up the post of Associate Professor & Professor in the JNIMS under the proposed Timescale Promotion Scheme. On consideration of the Timescale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2020 which was notified on 18th December, 2020, this Court is of the considered opinion that upgradation under this scheme is purely personal and the promotion effected will be non-functional. The submission of the learned Addl. AG that any upgradation in any posts under the Timescale Promotion scheme is purely personal and incumbents would continue to receive the pay scale of the post held prior to their upgradation unless they are accommodated in a substantive vacancy in the upgraded post has also been considered. Accordingly, interim order dated 18.05.2020 passed in WP(C) No.231 of 2020 is vacated. The applicants are permitted to make upgradation of the incumbents eligible under the Timescale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2020. The applicants are also directed to accommodate both the writ petitioners in WP (C) No.638 of 2017 and WP (C) No.231 of 2020 in the post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine as proposed by the applicants within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, accommodation/promotion of the two writ petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of the results in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 and WP(C) No.231 of 2020. The prayer for vacation of the interim order dated 15..09.2017 passed in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 is rejected. However, accommodation/promotion of the two writ petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of the results in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 and WP(C) No.231 of 2020. The prayer for vacation of the interim order dated 15..09.2017 passed in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 is rejected. Misc case stands disposed of.” [5] The review applicant seeks to review the order dated 1.2.2022 passed in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 and the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 on the following grounds: - A post of Associate Professor in Community Medicine was created in 2017 and for filling up of the said vacancy, a regular DPC was held on 15.09.2017. Another post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine arose due to superannuation of the incumbent in 2019. However, one Dr.N.Minita Devi filed W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the decision of the JNIMS declaring the newly created post of Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine to be the promotional post of Assistant Professor with medical background only with a further prayer to declare the said newly created post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine to be the promotional post of Statistician-cum-Assistant Professor, JNIMS. The writ petitioner also prayed for an alternative prayer to the effect that the respondent/JNIMS authorities be directed to create promotional post of Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine to be filled up from faculty members/Assistant Professor with non-medical background for career advancement. The said writ petition was taken up on 11.09.2017 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order directing the authorities that if the DPC is held, the result of the same may not be declared without leave of the Hon’ble Court. The said writ petition is now pending for final adjudication. Since, a regular DPC for filling up of the post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine has already been held on 15.09.2017 and the result of the same has been kept in a sealed cover because of the interim order dated 11.09.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.638 of2017, the said vacancy could not be considered to be clear vacancy for the purpose of filling up the same. Therefore, as there is only 1 (one) vacancy which arose in 2019 due to superannuation of the incumbent in 2019, and as such it is not possible for the review applicant to accommodate both the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 against the only vacancy of 2019. - There are 4 (four) sanctioned posts of Associate Professor in Community Medicine, JNIMS out of which 2 (two) posts are already manned by the incumbents. Out of the remaining 2 (two) posts, for 1 (one) post which arose in 2017, a regular DPC for filling up of the same by promotion has already been held on 15.09.2017, the result of which has been kept in seal covered by virtue of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Court on 11.09.2017 in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and as such, there is only 1 (one) clear resultant vacancy which arose due to superannuation of the incumbent on 26.02.2019. Therefore, it is submitted that until and unless the result of the DPC held in 2017 is allowed to be opened and the recommended incumbent is appointed/accommodated as per the recommendation of the DPC (one out of the two writ petitioners), both the writ petitioners cannot be considered for accommodation against the vacancy which arose in 2019. - If this Court permits to open the sealed cover of the result of the DPC held in 2017 by modifying the interim order dated 11.09.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.38 of 2017 and appoint/accommodate the recommended candidate, the remaining candidate/one of the writ petitioner could be considered for accommodation against the vacancy which arose in 2019 in the event this Court directs to do so. - For the purpose of filling up of a vacancy by promotion, a regular DPC is to be constituted under Rule 10(b) of JNIMS Service Rules 2015. Therefore, the direction of this Court to the effect that the extension of time is granted for accommodating both the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 to the post of Associate Professor in Community Medicine without holding a fresh DPC would be contrary to the provisions of Rules 10(b) of JNIMS Service Rules, 2015. Therefore, the direction of this Court to the effect that the extension of time is granted for accommodating both the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 to the post of Associate Professor in Community Medicine without holding a fresh DPC would be contrary to the provisions of Rules 10(b) of JNIMS Service Rules, 2015. - Though the Time Scale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2020 has already been framed and notified, the same could not be implemented because of the non-finalisation of seniority list amongst the Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. However, the Time Scale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2020 could be implemented only when this Court either dispose of W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 and 231 of 2020 or modify the interim orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions subject to the outcome of the said two writ petitions. [6] Highlighting the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the review applicant submitted that after the discovery of the facts enumerated above, there is mistake apparent on the face of record in the order dated 1.2.2022 and 20.12.2021 respectively and, therefore, the said orders are need to be reviewed. [7] The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him or any sufficient reason that is analogous to the other grounds. He would submit that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. [8] The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that there are two vacancies for the post of Associate Professor of Community Medicine in JNIMS and as such both the writ petitioner and the second respondent in the writ petition can be accommodated against the existing vacancies in addition to the promotion to be given to 100 faculty members, subject to the outcome of pending cases. This Court, taking into consideration the documents available on record and the proposal made by the review applicant, passed the order in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 on 20.12.2021 and now the review applicant cannot take a u-turn and sought for review of the order, as there is no apparent error in the face of the record. [9] The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the order dated 20.12.2021 came to be passed only on the proposal made by the review applicant and the review applicant also sought for extension of time to implement the order by stating that some more time is required in view of the procedural requirement as well as due to the imposition of Election Code of Conduct. [10] The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent in good faith had no objection to the prayer for more time to implement the order dated 20.12.2021 and, accordingly, vide order dated 1.2.2022 passed in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 this Court granted four more weeks’ time for implementing the order dated 20.12.2021. [11] The learned counsel urged that the review applicant is making a complete u-turn and for no apparent reason is now seeking to review the said consensus order, which came to be passed on the proposal of the review applicant. Therefore, there is no apparent mistake or error on the face of the record or discovery of new facts as stated by the review applicant for entertaining the present review applications. [12] This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. [13] The review applicant seeks to review the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 and the order dated 1.2.2022 passed in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of record. [14] On a perusal of the order dated 20.12.2021, it seen that while passing the said order this Court recorded the submission of the learned Addl. [14] On a perusal of the order dated 20.12.2021, it seen that while passing the said order this Court recorded the submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General as under: “… it would be in the interest of both the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 and WP(C) No.231 of 2020 if they are allowed to be accommodated to the post of Associate Professors in Community Medicine and other incumbents be upgraded to the next higher post under the Time Scale Promotion Scheme.” [15] After recording the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and also considering the submissions raised by the writ petitioner and the second respondent in the writ petition, this Court passed the order dated 20.12.2021 to the effect that the applicants are permitted to make upgradation of the incumbents eligible under the Timescale Promotion Scheme for Teachers of JNIMS Rules, 2020. The applicants are also directed to accommodate both the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.638 of 2017 and WP(C) No.231 of 2020 in the post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine as proposed by the applicants within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [16] As could be seen from the averments set out in the petition in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022, the applicant stated as under: “Further, in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the accommodation of the two writ petitioners of WP (C) No.638/2019 & WP (C) No.231 of 2020 i.e., Dr. Ningonbam Minita & Dr. H. Nirendrakumar to the post of Associate Professor, Community Medicine as proposed by the applicant, it is submitted that since the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is effective from 08.01.22, the process is underway to seek for exemption from Election Commission (EC) through the Screening Committee constituted vide order no.1/1/2022-GAD dated 09.01.2022 issued by Secretariat, GAD, Govt. of Manipur.” [17] Thus, it is clear that the order dated 20.12.2021 is an order passed based on the proposal given by the applicant and accepting the direction dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 only, the application has filed MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 seeking for extension of time to comply the order dated 20.12.2021. of Manipur.” [17] Thus, it is clear that the order dated 20.12.2021 is an order passed based on the proposal given by the applicant and accepting the direction dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 only, the application has filed MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 seeking for extension of time to comply the order dated 20.12.2021. Therefore, seeking to review the consent order dated 20.12.2021 under the guise of discovery of new facts is not permissible and only to delay the proceedings and in violation of the order, the applicant has filed the instant review applications. It is apparent that after taking into consideration the documents available on record and the proposal made by the applicant, this Court passed the order dated 20.12.2021 in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021 and, as stated supra, based on the request for extension sought by the applicant, this Court passed the order dated 1.2.2022 in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022. Viewed from the own admission of the review applicant itself, the orders now sought to be reviewed by the review applicant are not reviewable one. [18] Under Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a judgment is open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or on account of some mistake or error apparent on face of record or for any sufficient reason. [19] The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier. [20] In the instant case, as stated supra, the orders sought to be reviewed have been passed on the proposal of the learned Additional Advocate General representing the review applicant and therefore, there is no apparent error on the face of record or discovery of new facts for making the present review applications maintainable. [21] A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. [21] A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. In the present case the review applicant has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. [22] The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, while dealing with the scope of review, has held that re-appreciation of evidence and re-hearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in the light of the provisions as contained under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [23] In S.Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyse the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above. ....... 26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self-evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly applied the said principles as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ....... 26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self-evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly applied the said principles as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court." [24] Rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, as stated supra, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review applicant, in fact, under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is not permissible under law. [25] In the instant case, if the review applicant is aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous cases, it ought to have filed appeal and not the review application. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal and not under the guise of review petition. [26] It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject-matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though it can be made subject-matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. [27] In light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to review the order dated 1.2.2022 passed in MC (WP) No.22 of 2022 and the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (WP) No.315 of 2021. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Further, no case for interference is made out in the matter. [28] In the result, the review applications are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.