ORDER : 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed assailing the order dated 09.05.2023, passed in W.A. No. 1619/2022 whereby, the writ appeal has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.2 to 17 had approached this Court by filing W.P. No.11165/2021 claiming the reliefs pertaining to the payment of salary by the respondent No.5/School. 3. The review petitioners had filed an application I.A. No.3412/2022 seeking dismissal of the writ petition on account of its maintainability as a preliminary objection on the ground that the respondent No.5/School is an unaided Educational Institution and the private respondents herein were employed in the aforesaid school on contractual basis only as teachers. In the application it was stated that the private respondents have claimed the reliefs pertaining to payment of salary which does not involve any sort of public functions on the part of review petitioners, therefore, the petition is not maintainable qua the review petitioners. The learned Single Judge overruled the objections with regard to the maintainability vide order dated 28.10.2022, passed in W.P. No.11165/2021 holding that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 4. Being aggrieved, the review petitioners filed W.A. No.1619/2022. The writ appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 09.5.2023 relying on various judgments of the Apex Court wherein, it is held that the writ petition would be maintainable where the employees/teachers are discharging public function. The writ Appellate Court held that the school run by the review petitioners, being an unaided school by virtue of Section 2 (n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short the "Act of 2009") coupled with Rules in the name of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011(hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2011") were discharging a public duty as was cast upon it by the said statutes and maintained the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the present review petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that this Court failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors. Being aggrieved, the present review petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that this Court failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 498 in which it is held that the action impugned before the writ court has no nexus with public element, even though the private body in question may be discharging public functions, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such a case. Learned counsel pointed out that this ground was specifically raised even before the learned Single Judge as well as before the Appellate Court, however, this aspect escaped attention of this Court. Therefore, the order passed in the writ appeal needs to be reviewed. 6. Shri Rishiraj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that though the judgment of St. Mary's Education Society (Supra) was considered by the learned Single Judge, however, while coming to the conclusion held that a teacher, undoubtedly is an employee, who imparts education on behalf of the unaided educational institution, has a direct nexus to the main purpose of the educational institution and dismissed the objection. 7. Even the Appellate Court in writ appeal relying on various judgment of the Apex Court came to the inference that the employees were discharging public duty cast upon them by virtue of the statutes and as such, the public duty stands obliterated in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution of India as well as the Act of 2009 and Rules of 2011 which gave effect to the fundamental right in unequivocal terms, have rightly dismissed the writ appeal. No interference is called for while reviewing the order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The writ Appellate Court in Para-24 of W.A. No.1619/2022 came to the conclusion as under :- " 24. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as also the fact that the appellant is a private unaided institution imparting education to students which is otherwise a primary function of the State and is performing function/public duty and accordingly it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as also the fact that the appellant is a private unaided institution imparting education to students which is otherwise a primary function of the State and is performing function/public duty and accordingly it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further since action under challenge falls in the domain of public law, the appellant has been discharging a public duty under the prescription of a statute and subsidiary rules made thereunder i.e the Act of 2009, rules framed under the Act of 2009 by the State of Madhya Pradesh named as The Right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, for denial any rights of his rights in connection with public duty imposed on such body, public law remedy can be enforced and as the service conditions of the respondents have direct nexus of the discharge of a public duty, their case would be covered under the exception clause, therefore amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 10. So far as non-consideration of St. Mary's Education Society (Supra) is concerned, the facts are distinguishable in as much as the employees therein were the Lower Division Clerks appointed on contractual basis and their services were terminated whereas, in the present case, the employees are teachers, who are discharging public duties. In such a situation and looking to the fact that these teachers are discharging the functions which are akin to the functions of the State or are sobering in nature. 11. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review the petitioners have to demonstrate that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by it. The petitioners cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits. [See: J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1988 SC 1681 , S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission , (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another , (2008) 8 SCC 612 ] 12. [See: J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1988 SC 1681 , S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission , (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another , (2008) 8 SCC 612 ] 12. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman, (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. 13. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review." 14. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned. 15. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.