JUDGMENT : (SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.) Heard Shri AZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Shri D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department. 2. By the present application, the applicants, who were the writ petitioners in the WP(C)/661/2020 have prayed for review of the order dated 28.02.2025 by which the said writ petition along with certain other writ petitions were dismissed. 3. Before going to the grounds set forth in the application for review, it would be apposite to remind ourselves the parameters and contours in which an application for review may be held to be maintainable. 4. The principles governing review are well settled. In a recent decision dated 18.08.2022 reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034 , ( S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors. ) a three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant case laws has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra) which are as follows: “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; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to 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 reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (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. (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. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative.” 5. The writ petitions were pertaining to a broad claim of salaries of the Staff of the Burn Unit of the Dhubri Civil Hospital, as well asthe continuation of their services. The common case projected by the writ petitioners was that an MoU was signed between the State and Central Government in the year 2020 for the establishment of Burn Units in certain hospitals, including the Dhubri Civil Hospital. The MoU had contemplated forming of a Hospital Management Society and it is the said Hospital Management Society which had initiated the recruitment and made the appointment. It is, however, a matter of fact that the Deputy Commissioner of the District was the ex-officio Chairman of the Society and the Joint Director Healthfunctioned as the Secretary and therefore the recruitment was done under their signatures. Consequently, a conscious decision was taken for constructing the Dhubri Medical College and Hospital and to facilitatethe same, the Civil Hospital in question was demolished and subsequently the Dhubri Medical College and Hospital has been constructed in which a Burn Unit is also there. The aforesaid facts were taken into consideration and this Court vide the said judgment had dismissed the writ petitions. However, so far as the salaries for three petitioners in WP(C)/7189/2015 were concerned, certain observations were made. 6. ShriAhmed, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there are materials on record to show that the entire process of recruitment was done by the Department and not by the Society. However, so far as the salaries for three petitioners in WP(C)/7189/2015 were concerned, certain observations were made. 6. ShriAhmed, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there are materials on record to show that the entire process of recruitment was done by the Department and not by the Society. He has also submitted that this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 28.02.2025 had made some observations that the recruitment was done by the Hospital ManagementSociety and not by the Department, with further observations that till 31.3.2021, the salaries were paid after which, the services were discontinued. It was also observed by this Court that the project in question was a pilot project. The non-existence of the Hospital Management Society after demolition of the Civil Hospital in Dhubri has also been observed. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that mere dismantling of the building would not amount to discontinuation of the services of the applicants and in any case, such discontinuation was stayed by an order of this Court passed in the year 2021. He has reiterated that the applicants were appointed by the Department. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional affidavit filed in the writ petition by the Director of Health Services, respondent no. 6, in which a statement was made that the advertisement dated 1.1.2014 was jointly issued by the District Commissioner and the Joint Director Health which would show that the recruitment was done by the Department. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to various communications exchanged between the Directorate and the Department, to show that the entire process was one of the Department. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2025 is liable to be reviewed as certain error has crept in the same. 9. Per contra, Shri Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has submitted that the scope for reviewing of an order is very limited and confined to the parameters laid down in Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It is submitted that the present application does not fall within the exceptional circumstances to maintain a review. He has also clarified that though the recruitment appears to have been done under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director Health, they were acting as Office Bearers of the Hospital Management Committee which was duly constituted as per the MoU. He has also submitted that the other aspects of the contention made in the review have been dealt with by this Court in the order dated 28.02.2025 and therefore, no case for review is made of out. 10. As indicated above, the ambit and powers which a Court can exercise for review have been well defined. It is needless to reiterate that it is only on limited grounds where a review Court could exercise its powers which are- a. Detecting an error apparent on the face of the record, b. Discovery of facts which were not within the knowledge of the party even by exercise of due diligence and c. Sufficient reasons. Though the third ground is subjective in nature, the requirement of sufficiency has to be construed in a strict manner as otherwise the object to bring litigations to a finality would be defeated. 11. In the instant case, the primary contention of the applicants is that the recruitment process was done by the Department. Though the involvement of the Joint Director Health and the Deputy Commissioner of the District is apparent, such involvement was only in the capacity of Chairman and Secretary of the Hospital Management Society. In fact, the recruitment notice which has been annexed would show that it was the Hospital Management Society, Dhubri which had issued the same and the appointments were also made by the said Society which has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the Society. The issue regarding stay of the discontinuation by this Court has been dealt with in detail in the aforesaid order and cannot be reopened by this Court in an application for review as the findings are on the merits of the case. 12. The issue regarding stay of the discontinuation by this Court has been dealt with in detail in the aforesaid order and cannot be reopened by this Court in an application for review as the findings are on the merits of the case. 12. This Court has also found that the grounds sought to be urged in support of the review are not fresh grounds, but are grounds which were taken in the writ proceedings, duly considered and answered on merits and therefore, it would not be a fit case wherein the powers of review are to be exercised, more so when this Court has not noticed any error apparent on the face of the reports. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present application for review is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.