ORDER : I.A No. 5035 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in filing this present Letters Patent Appeal. For the reasons stated in this application the delay of 21 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal is condoned and, accordingly, I.A No. 5035 of 2019 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 277 of 2019 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Central Coalfields Limited (in short CCL) to challenge the order dated 29th January 2019 passed in Civil Review No. 53 of 2018 as modified by the order dated 4th February 2019. 2. W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015 was filed by the respondent seeking a direction upon the CCL to consider him a displaced person to provide employment under the scheme of rehabilitation. 3. The writ petition was dismissed on 22nd June 2018 for the following reasons: “6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, in particular, the rules/circulars relating to employment norm against the land acquisition during the relevant period; in the context of the case at hand it is manifestly clear that “standard norm is for one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and two acres of irrigated. However, if the land loser being considered for employment is matriculate or above the norm may be reduced to two acres per person, if he opts to join initially as an apprentice of a period of two years during which he may be paid fixed stipend per month.” From the pleadings available on record, in the case at hand though against 6.01 acres of land two persons, namely, Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were given employment as apprentice, but, as per the averment made in the supplementary counter affidavit, these appointees vide their written letter dated 16.08.1985 refused to join as apprentice, hence they were absorbed/employed as Clerk Grade III (Trainee) against 6.01 acres of land on the proposition of one employment for every three acres of land. Hence, out of total 12.02 acres five employments were created/offered, which has already been exhausted. So far Annexure 22 series to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 5.9.2016 referred by the petitioner is considered it is the only recommendation made by the authorities and not the final order. Hence, out of total 12.02 acres five employments were created/offered, which has already been exhausted. So far Annexure 22 series to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 5.9.2016 referred by the petitioner is considered it is the only recommendation made by the authorities and not the final order. It is settled principles of law that recommendation does not create any indefeasible right of employment. On the other hand, the respondents-authorities vide order dated 08.07.2014, Annexure F to the counter affidavit, rejected the claim of the petitioner, which has never been challenged by the petitioner before any forum, and in this order the authorities have taken specific ground that against 6.01 acres of land - two employments were given and for rest 6.01 acres of land -three employments were given as per the guidelines in vogue during the year 1985 and during the year 2002. Besides, the petitioner has approached this Court after lapsing of more than four decades of acquisition of land.” 4. Thereafter a review petition was filed by the respondent on the grounds that the letter dated 16th August 1985 was never brought on record and the stand taken by the CCL that Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu who were given appointment as Apprentice were absorbed on the post of Clerk Grade III was not established. The Court has entertained the review petition and modified the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015 to the following effect: 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons, relevant provisions of Act and judicial pronouncements, and in order to rectify the error, which has crept in the judgment dated 22.06.2088 passed in W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015, paragraphs 6 and 7 are hereby deleted and in place thereof, following paragraphs are directed to be inserted and shall be read accordingly: “6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, in particular, the rules/circulars relating to employment norm against the land acquisition during the relevant period; in the context of the case at hand it is manifestly clear that “standard norm is for one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and two acres of irrigated. However, if the land loser being considered for employment is matriculate or above the norm may be reduced to two acres per person, if he opts to join initially as an apprentice of a period of two years during which he may be paid fixed stipend per month.” Here, the Rule/circular is specific, that only for apprentice rule has been relaxed for two acres, as applicable to the case of petitioner. From the pleadings available on record, in the case at hand though against approx 5.69 acres of land two persons, namely, Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were given employment as Trainee/apprentice for a fixed period of two years on initial basic pay of Clerk Grade III and they will be regularized on successful completion of training. Hence, after exhausting four acres of land, rest land of 1.69 acres remained for future employment and when judgment came in the civil case in favour of petitioners' family, they rightly claimed for employment. So far letter dated 16.5.1985 (inadvertently written in writ application as 16.08.1985), whereby it is alleged that so called Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu, is concerned though it has been disputed by the petitioner however, even if it is taken to have been submitted, the same was submitted before employment was given to so called Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu and after considering their application relevant rule appointment letter for apprentice was given to them. Hence, letter dated 16.5.1985 shall not come in the way of present petitioner and would not strength the case of respondents. Taking into these facts, the recommendations made by authorities of the respondents, as evident from Annexure 22 to writ application does not suffer from any illegality. So far knocking the door of this Court at this distant period of time is concerned, the review petitioner has well explained at paragraph 23 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in review application, which he had not well explained in writ petition, hence to meet the ends of justice, this Court considers the delay in approaching to be natural. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment as per scheme of rehabilitation/land losers. 8. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment as per scheme of rehabilitation/land losers. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.” 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the CCL has challenged the aforesaid reasons for modifying the writ Court's order dated 22nd June 2018 on the ground that the review petition was not founded on a ground akin to the grounds mentioned under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. On a glance at the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition not only on merits but also on the ground that the writ petitioner had approached the Court more than four decades after acquisition of lands. 7. The aforesaid finding of the writ Court is not challenged by the respondent and this is an admitted position that on the date of acquisition the respondent was not even born. We may add to this that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and delay and laches are the well-known grounds to refuse to exercise the powers by the writ Court. Moreover, a review petition must necessarily not be a guise for appeal to the order passed by the writ Court. 8. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.....” 9. Furthermore, this is by now a well-accepted proposition in law that a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.....” 9. Furthermore, this is by now a well-accepted proposition in law that a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The very nature of dispute sought to be raised by the respondent that the letter dated 16th August 1985 did not see the light of the day is such a disputed question of fact which could not have been gone into by the reviewing Court - a review petition is entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, L.P.A. No. 277 of 2019 is allowed and, consequently, order dated 29th January 2019 passed in Civil Review No. 53 of 2018 as modified by the order dated 4th February 2019 is set-aside.