JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri P. V. Ramana, learned; counsel for the review petitioners and Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This Review Petition is filed for review of the judgment dated 24.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.3021 of 2018. 3. The review is by the writ petitioners. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the prayer in the writ petition was for direction to the respondents to implement the G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017 for continuation of the services of the writ petitioners upto the age of 60 years. He submits that the writ petition has been disposed of with direction to the petitioners to approach the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with a comprehensive representation seeking relief whereas the prayer in the writ petition was entirely different. 4. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observations and directions:- "6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that APSCRIC was established under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 on 16.5.1981 and registered by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, City Circle, Hyderabad and the 9 area of operation was erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The main objective of the corporation is to assist the Primary Agricultural Development Banks, Central Cooperative Banks for effective utilization of loan sanction to members for the purpose of minor irrigation and for achieving the above objects, the society undertake and execute drilling of wells and revitalize existing wells and to undertake the existing wells of farmers who secured loans for the purpose from the Primary Agricultural Development Banks, Central Cooperative Banks or any other financing agencies and also to undertake the private digging of wells as well. In the year 1998, the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh approved cadre strength of 458 posts under Section 116-C of APCS Act, 1964 to APSCRIC. The APSCRIC has to earn their income by drilling/revitalization of bore wells to meet the salaries of the staff and other administrative expenditure and there is no budgetary provision from the Government to meet the salaries of employees or any other administrative expenditure. The APSCRIC has to earn their income by drilling/revitalization of bore wells to meet the salaries of the staff and other administrative expenditure and there is no budgetary provision from the Government to meet the salaries of employees or any other administrative expenditure. As the 61 rig-units have become idle and all the rig-units were condemned, payment of their salaries has become difficult since all the rigs were condemned and there is no sufficient work to all the employees. Accordingly, the Board resolved vide Resolution No .4 dated 18.4.2008 'to declare the 1712 Driller-cum-Driver/Helper/LVD/HVD as surplus staff due to nonperformance of rig units' and consequently, no source of income. Further, the Board also resolved vide Resolution No.14 for Redesignation of Driller-cum-Drivers, HV Drivers and LV Drivers as Driver' 10 to create opportunities for their reputation if possible or for absorption in other Corporations/Departments where there are vacancies and requirement of their services. As per the above resolution, the Managing Director, APSCRIC vide his letter Procs.No.E1/RIC/223/2008/99 dated 08.05.2008 requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation and District Collectors to give priority for deputation/absorption in the existing vacancies. As per the proposal of the Managing Director, APSCRIC, the Government vide letter No.847/Coop.IV.2/2014-1 dated 17.5.2014 permitted to send the surplus staff working in the APSCRIC to various SMPCs in the Districts as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.24 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 09.01.2002. Accordingly, the Managing Director, APSCRIC in his letter No.E2/RIC/Adm/1329/98/2012/7083 dated 23.7.2014 has surrendered the services of the petitioners and also other surplus employees in APSCRIC to Surplus Man Power Cell of the District Collector, Ananthapur. As per the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 09.01.2002, surplus man power are to be surrendered to the SMPC under the District Collector and in turn, they will be under the control of the concerned District Employment Officer for their continuation in various districts under the District Collector. Accordingly, they were redeployed to various departments such as DWMA, DRDA/APMSIDC etc. However, there is no clarity in the counter filed by the respondents. The counter states that the petitioners were deputed and later they were absorbed. No where it is clearly stated that after declaring the petitioners 11 as surplus and deploying them to SMPC, whether they were absorbed in any other organization or not. However, there is no clarity in the counter filed by the respondents. The counter states that the petitioners were deputed and later they were absorbed. No where it is clearly stated that after declaring the petitioners 11 as surplus and deploying them to SMPC, whether they were absorbed in any other organization or not. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent Corporation it is stated that the petitioners are completely detached from the Corporation and they are retired while working in SMPC. The Government says that they are only providing employment on humanitarian grounds and for all practical purposes they are the employees of the 1st Respondent - APSCRIC, which is defunct and no funds are available. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the 1st and 2nd respondents by way of comprehensive representation seeking relief within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same in consultation with the 1st respondent Corporation and pass appropriate reasoned order as per law within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No order as to costs." 5. A perusal of the judgment in particular the part reproduced above shows that in the factual background of the case in the light of the pleadings in the writ petition and the counter affidavit(s) the co-ordinate bench did not find it a case to grant the relief as prayed by the writ petitioners but disposed of the writ petition with the directions as contained in the order. The writ court considered the rival contentions as also the G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017. If the relief as prayed in the writ petition is not granted by the writ court, it would not be a case of review. The submission as advanced des not make out a ground for review and cannot be termed as an apparent error. 6. The writ court considered the rival contentions as also the G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017. If the relief as prayed in the writ petition is not granted by the writ court, it would not be a case of review. The submission as advanced des not make out a ground for review and cannot be termed as an apparent error. 6. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, 1963:INSC:213 : AIR 1964 SC 1372 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held in para 11, which is reproduced, as under: "11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an 'identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. No questions of fact were involved in the decision of the High Court in T.R.Cs. 75 to 77 of 1956. 7. No questions of fact were involved in the decision of the High Court in T.R.Cs. 75 to 77 of 1956. 7. In Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others 2000:INSC:405 : (2000) 7 SCC 296 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that there is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent' and a 'review' is by no means an 'appeal' in disguise. 8. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayavati and others 2013:INSC:526 : (2013) 8 SCC 320 , the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down when the review will be maintainable and when not. Para 20 of Kamesh Verma (supra) is reproduced as under: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (t) 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; (it) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. 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 error, 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. (viz) 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 petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 9. It is thus well established in law that the review is not maintainable when the relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 10. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 9. It is thus well established in law that the review is not maintainable when the relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 10. We do not find any error apparent in the judgment under review. The Review Petition I.A.No.4 of 2023 deserves rejection. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the review petitioners may be permitted to file representation as directed by the writ court, to respondent No.5 as well along with respondents 1 and 2. He submits that the period granted by the writ court has already expired, for presentation of representation which may also be extended. 12. The petitioners are at liberty to file a representation in terms of the judgment dated 24.03.2023, also before the respondent No.5, along with respondents 1 and 2, within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, upon which the respondents 1, 2 and 5, shall pass the orders as per the directions in the writ court's judgment dated 24.03.2023. 13. The Review Petition I.A.No.4 of 2023 is rejected subject to the observations in para No.12 of this judgment.