Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. The present review petition has been filed by the State/review petitioners seeking review of the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.456/2025, whereby the writ appeal preferred by the State questioning the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1143/2018, has been dismissed.

2. Initially, the petitioner has filed the writ petition bearing WPS No.1143/2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.12.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner preferred WA No.49/2024, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2024, remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. Pursuant thereto, the learned Single Judge reconsidered the matter and allowed the writ petition vide order dated 18.11.2024. Challenging the said order, the State preferred WA No.456/2025, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 09.07.2025. Thereafter, the State approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) Diary No.12241/2026. The said Special Leave Petition was, however, withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court by filing a review petition on the ground that certain factual inaccuracies had allegedly crept into the judgment under challenge. Hence, the present review petition.

3. The case of the writ petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that during the anti-Naxal operation conducted on 12.05.2014, the petitioner was the leader of the cut-off party, whereas respondents No.4 and 5 were members of the same team. It is stated that although respondents No.4 and 5 were granted out-of-turn promotion for their role in the operation, the petitioner's claim was rejected by the Promotion Committee without assigning any reasons. According to the petitioner, the briefing report prepared after the operation specifically records the bravery, leadership and gallant role played by the petitioner along with his team during the encounter. It is further stated that the minutes of the Promotion Committee dated 04.10.2017 neither disclose any reason for rejecting the petitioner's claim nor explain the basis on which respondents No.4 and 5 were granted out-of-turn promotion despite the petitioner being the team leader. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law.

4. Learned State counsel appearing for the review petitioners/ State submits that the present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.456/2025, whereby the writ appeal preferred by the State was dismissed affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1143/2018. It is submitted that the original writ petitioner had claimed out-of-turn promotion on the ground that he was the leader of the cut-off party during the anti-Naxal operation conducted on 12.05.2014, whereas respondents No.4 and 5, who were members of the same party, had been granted such promotion. Learned State counsel further submits that the judgment under review suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as certain material facts and relevant records relating to the process of grant of out-of-turn promotion were not properly appreciated, resulting in dismissal of the writ appeal. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed in WA No.456/2025 be reviewed and recalled.

5. Countering the aforesaid submissions of the review petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ writ petitioner submits that the present review petition is misconceived and does not disclose any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in review jurisdiction.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The principal grievance raised by the review petitioners is that while dismissing WA No.456/2025, this Court did not properly appreciate certain factual aspects and relevant records relating to the process of grant of out-of-turn promotion. However, upon careful consideration of the grounds urged in the present review petition and the judgment sought to be reviewed, we find that the alleged errors pointed out by the review petitioners are neither patent nor self-evident. The grounds raised essentially require this Court to re-examine the factual matrix, re-appreciate the material available on record and arrive at a different conclusion from the one already recorded while deciding the writ appeal. Such an exercise falls squarely within the domain of appellate jurisdiction and not within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

8. It is also evident that all the issues now sought to be raised by the review petitioners were either specifically considered while deciding the writ appeal or were available to be urged at that stage. Merely because the review petitioners are dissatisfied with the conclusions recorded by this Court or seek a different interpretation of the same material would not constitute a ground for review. A review petition cannot be permitted to serve as an appeal in disguise for rehearing the matter on merits.

9. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a review petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different.

10. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692).

11. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view.

12. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated in the order dated 09/07/2025 passed in WA No.456/2025. The present review petition, in substance, seeks re- argument and re-appreciation of the matter on merits, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The present review petition substantially seeks reconsideration of the findings already recorded by this Court on appreciation of the material available on record. Such a course is clearly beyond the permissible ambit of review jurisdiction. No ground warranting exercise of review powers is, therefore, made out.

13. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.