1. Present review petition is preferred arising out of the order dated 10.03.2026 passed in W.P. No.3172/2009.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking the relief that the order Annexure P/1 dated 22-12-2008 with regard to the appointment/regularization of respondent no. 4 be quashed with a further direction to appoint/regularize the petitioner from the date where lesser meritorious candidates have been appointed/regularized with all consequential benefit. It is further submitted that the said petition was disposed of merely on the ground that the disputed question of facts is involved and same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction as same can be decided only after taking evidence and examining witnesses. However, without disputing the fact as pleaded in the petition in return by the State Government, it cannot be said that it is a disputed question of fact. This Court has decided the issue only on the basis of ex parte fact finding report Annexure R/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the civil suit is not maintainable before the District Court as per the provision mentioned in Article 323-A of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that as per enquiry report (Annexure R-8), petitioner has not completed the running of 25 kms and allegation in the report is that the petitioner has partially completed the length of 25 kms by using mechanical means, i.e., motorcycle and submitted that the fact finding enquiry has already been completed and on that basis, petitioner has been declared as unfit. Report/fact finding enquiry report cannot be decided without examining the witnesses and cross-examination of the witnesses and submitted that no error is apparent on the face of the record and the Civil Court is competent to decide the issue as the disputed questions of fact can only be decided after taking evidence and examining the witnesses.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:

          "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 Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".

          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 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 meres 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) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

6. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detailed examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.

7. It is also settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises disputed question of facts.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 298 has dealt with the question whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of the authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case observed as under:

          "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995."

          (emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 1, wherein it observed as follows:

          "16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third person could not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution."

          (emphasis supplied)

10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under:

          "26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable."

11. Subsequently, in Union of India vs. Puna Hinda, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:

          "24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or howmuch amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystalised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads."

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated:

          "82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civilsuit."

          (emphasis supplied)

13. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that it is well settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction.

14. In the present case, as per the enquiry report (Annexure R-8), the petitioner had not completed the required 25 kms running and was alleged to have partially covered the distance using mechanical means, i.e., motorcycle. It was noted that a fact-finding enquiry had already been conducted, on the basis of which the petitioner was declared unfit. The correctness of such an enquiry report involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated without examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

15. Accordingly, no apparent error exists on the face of the record warranting interference, and such issues are more appropriately within the domain of the Civil Court, which is competent to decide them after recording evidence.

16. Resultantly, this review petition stands dismissed.