JUDGMENT : Per se, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Both the review petitions are arising out of common issue and the Civil Review No. 01 of 2025 depends upon the outcome of the Civil Review No. 74 of 2024, since the Judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in the LPA No. 407 of 2024 which is being challenged in Civil Review No. 01 of 2025 was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Court in LPA No.146 of 2019.Therefore, Civil Review No. 74 of 2024 is being taken into consideration first. Civil Review No.74 of 2024 1. The instant civil review has been filed seeking review of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in LPA No.146 of 2019 by this Court, whereby and whereunder, while concurring with the findings of the writ court, the said LPA has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. Before considering the grounds as agitated in the instant review application, we need to refer herein the factual aspects in brief for better appreciation of the sustainability of the grounds upon which the present review application has been filed which are as follows: “(i). Vide letter No.8280 dated 23.09.2016 and letter No.9441 dated 04.11.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, requisition was sent to Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for starting selection process for appointment on the post of Combined Graduate Trained Teachers in different subjects for district wise vacancy lying in the State of Jharkhand amongst others, for the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). (ii) In pursuance to the aforesaid letters issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 published advertisement No.21/16 and online applications were invited. The syllabus was also described in the said advertisement. (iii) The appellants are Graduate in different faculty like: Science, Commerce, Arts, Engineering and Physical Education etc. The appellants have submitted their online applications and online admit cards were also downloaded. The date of examination for physical education paper was scheduled to be held on 29.10.2017 and for compulsory paper (G.K. and Hindi Language) on 19.11.2017. The appellants appeared and participated in the said examination. (iv) The process of recruitment involved single stage examination consisting of two papers i.e. Paper I- Compulsory Paper (G.K. and Hindi Language)-200 marks and Paper II-Optional Paper (Physical Education)-300 marks. The appellants appeared and participated in the said examination. (iv) The process of recruitment involved single stage examination consisting of two papers i.e. Paper I- Compulsory Paper (G.K. and Hindi Language)-200 marks and Paper II-Optional Paper (Physical Education)-300 marks. Paper-1 was qualifying in nature and securing minimum of 33 marks in the same was compulsory and paper-II (optional paper) consisted of 150 questions of 2 marks each and minimum qualifying marks was50% for the candidates belongs to General and OBC category and 45 % for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Paper II prescribed syllabus in three parts. Part-A contains concept of Physical Education, Physiological Aspects of Physical Education, Physical Fitness and Wellness and Training Methods and Sociological Aspects of Physical Education. Part-B History of the game/sports etc., latest general rules of the game/sports, measurement of play fields and specification of sports equipments and specifications of sports equipment, fundamental skills of the game/sports, related sports terminologies, important tournaments and venues, sports personalities, sports awards and Part-C HealthEducation, Communicable Disease, Contemporary Health Problems, Healthful Living, Family Health Education and Prevention and First Aid for common sports injuries. (v) After conducting the examination, the JSSC uploaded the model answer key on its website and online objections/suggestions were also invited from the candidates from 02.11.2017 to 08.11.2017 and information to the aforesaid effect was also published in the Newspaper (Annexure-A). Thereafter, several candidates submitted their online objections/suggestions to the model answer before the JSSC. (vi) The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission after receipt of objections/suggestions from the candidates placed the same before experts for verification/corrections of the model answer in the light of the objections/suggestions of the candidates. After receiving the opinion of the experts about the model answer key subject wise in the light of the suggestions/objections of the candidates, the JSSC published the modified model answer key (Annexure-B) which is alleged to be binding to the JSSC. (vii) The appellants who were writ petitioners prayed for re- examination of physical education paper by cancellingexamination of the said paper in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016 within a specified period on the grounds of wrong questions, questions out of syllabus and questions not properly framed in English and Hindi language etc. (vii) The appellants who were writ petitioners prayed for re- examination of physical education paper by cancellingexamination of the said paper in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016 within a specified period on the grounds of wrong questions, questions out of syllabus and questions not properly framed in English and Hindi language etc. in view of Clause 13 of the instruction appended to the question paper, which reads as under-Clause 13 "Question of language and literature subjects are in the same language and script or in Hindi/Deonagri script. Question of the rest of the subjects are in Hindi and English. In case of difference in any question in both versions, questions can be cancelled." (viii) It is stated that the question booklet for the subject of physical education was containing 150 questions, out of which 27 questions were liable to be rejected/cancelled on the ground of wrong and out of syllabus questions. It is also alleged that 11 questions from paper of General Science required to be eliminated on the ground that the questions pertaining to the main subject of physical education were asked. It is alleged that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents in the matter of setting out different questions for the said two papers in the manner indicated above is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory in nature and violative of article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. (ix) In the premises of above factual background, it was prayed to cancel the said examination for the subject of physical education and direct the respondent Nos 1 and 2 to hold re-examination of the above subject in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016 within a specified period. (ix) The review petitioners have participated in the process of selection but when they have not been declared to be successful, they raised the grievance of infirmity in the question paper/answer of physical education paper, as such, the direction has been sought for re-examination of physical education paper by cancelling the examination of the said paper in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016. (x) The writ petition has been dismissed on the grounds that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that there cannot be any cancellation of the examination merely on the ground of the allegation of wrong answer by agreeing with the view taken by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission wherein the stand interalia was taken that after receipt of objections/suggestions from the candidates,placed the same before experts for verification/corrections of the model answer in the light of the objections/suggestions of the candidates. After receiving the opinion of the experts about the model answer key subject wise in the light of the suggestions/objections of the candidates, the commission published the modified model answer key and as per the said key the evaluation has been done by the Commission. (xi) The said judgment has been carried to the letters patent appeal. (xii) The Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 08.11.2023 has declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the writ court on the ground of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh V. State of UP (2018) 2 SCC 357 . (xii) The present review petition being Civil Review No. 74 of 2024 has been preferred for the review of the order dated 08.11.2023. Submission on behalf of the review/writ petitioner: 3. The following grounds have been taken to review the judgment dated 8.11.2023: (i) The subject which was to be studied as merely qualifying paper, its syllabus and questions have been merged into the main examination paper having 'Physical Education' as subject, which is wholly arbitrary and opposed to the entire system of education and exams where there is division of examination papers based on subjects and those subjects carry specific syllabus and candidates are expected to perform based on the given syllabus. (ii) It has not been considered by the Court that cumulatively. 42 to 45 questions out of 150, have translation error or are unrelated to the subject concerned, and hence correcting only 3 questions by giving grace marks out of the said 42 to 45 questions does not give equal opportunity each examinee/candidate to perform to the most of his ability and results in arbitrary & unreasonable level playing field for the writ petitioners along with other examinees. (iii) For that this Hon'ble Court has grossly failed to take into account that judgment dated 18.04.2018 passed in WP(S) No. 568/2018 in the matter of Ashish Kumar Chourasia is not applicable in the present case, as because writ was filed after publication of result i.e. result was published on 08.01.2018 and WP(S) No. 568/2018 was filed on 29.01.2018, whereas in the present case W.P.(S). no. 7363/2017 was filed on. 12.12.2017 and 1 result for Santhal Pargana was published on 10.09.2018, for Palamau Division on 04.10.2018, for South Chotanagpur Division on 20.11.2018, for North Chotanagpur Division on 14.12.2018 and for Kohlan division on 21.01.2019, 4. The Learned counsel for the review petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in LPA 146 of 2019 is fit to be reviewed. Submission on behalf of the respondent State: 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the ground upon which the present review has been filed is not fit to be entertained reason being that each and every aspect of the argument of the appellant/review petitioner has been taken care of and addressed by the learned writ Court as well as by the Letters Patent Court. 6. On the aforesaid grounds it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that once the legal issues have already been considered by this Court, the same cannot be a ground for review, rather at best the same can be a ground to challenge by referring an appeal before higher Forum and, as such, the instant review petition may be dismissed. Analysis 7. This court, however, is of the view that before dealing with the grounds to assess as to whether these grounds can be considered to be proper to review the judgment passed in LPA No. 146 of 2019, we need to refer herein the proposition of law which is to be exercised by the Court for the purpose of review of the order. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case “ Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. ” [ AIR 1954 SC 526 ] , particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. ” [ AIR 1954 SC 526 ] , particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” 9. Likewise, in the case of “ Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India ” (1980) Supp. SCC 562 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 10. ….. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati ” (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized 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: (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; Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto 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 v. 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 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 re-heard 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. (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 petition. (i) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 11. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 12. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgment made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose (supra). 13. It is evident that while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be exercised on well-recognized and established grounds on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order was made. 14. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE as permissible grounds of review. 15. 14. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE as permissible grounds of review. 15. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 16. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 17. Further, the law is well-settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi ” (1997) 8 SCC 715 , for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 18. Similarly, in “ S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and Others ” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: 15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that 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. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which thecontroversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminemgravabit.” 19. In the recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) &Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph 16.1 to 16.7 which reads as under:- “16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.—" 20. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.—" 20. The law has been settled that the review of an order /judgment can only be made if there is any error apparent on the face of the order or the facts could not have been brought to the notice of the court inspite of due diligence. 21. This Court is proceeding to assess the grounds upon which the present review application has been filed and has found that none of the groundshas been brought on record to substantiate that there is any error apparent on the face of order or the facts, and further it could not have been brought to the notice of the court that in-spite of due diligence some ground has not been raised before the writ or letters patent Court rather, it is apparent from the order of which review has been sought for that all the available ground as well as the meritsof the case have already been taken into consideration by the writ court in its judgment and the same has been upheld by the coordinate Bench of this Court. 22. Moreover, the review which has been sought for evaluation of the answer-sheet by cancelling the examination which has already been dealt with by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh V. State of UP (supra) and merely on the ground that on the allegation of wrong answer the proposition has been laid down that entire selection process cannot be cancelled and even the evaluation of answer sheet is not permissible. 23. The issue of wrong question has already been dealt with by applying the mind.The contention of the Commission is that the model answer-sheet has been prepared on the basis of the opinion which has been sought for from the expert committee. The objections which have been received have fully been corroborated by the said model answer-sheet and specific stand has been taken before the writ Court and also before the coordinate Bench of this Court. 24. The objections which have been received have fully been corroborated by the said model answer-sheet and specific stand has been taken before the writ Court and also before the coordinate Bench of this Court. 24. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the view that the allegation of wrong answer-sheet has already been dealt with by the learned single judge while deciding the issue at the initial stage and, thereafter, the same has also been taken into consideration by this Court while hearing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by the writ court. 25. The grounds which have been raised since neither the matter is coming in the fold of the error apparent on the face of the order rather the grounds which have been contended herein appears to be in the garb of appeal. 26. This Court considering the aforesaid facts and based upon the reasons stated above finds that no case is made out to exercise the power of review. 27. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid facts and considering the scope of review as refer ed in the judgment rendered hereinabove, is of the view that it is not a case where any error apparent on the fact of the order is available, hence, the present review petition being Civil Review No. 74 of 2024 is fit to be dismissed and, accordingly, dismissed. 28. In consequence of dismissal of Civil Review No. 74 of 2024, Civil Review No. 1 of 2025 also stands dismissed. 29. IA(s), if any, stands disposed of.