R. Banumathi, C.J:— The present review is filed to review the order dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No. 47/2013 on the ground of subsequent discovery of new and identical facts concerning the case of the review-petitioner.

2. Brief facts which led to filing of this review petition are as follows:—

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an advertisement, vide Advertisement No. 05/2007, on 20.4.2007 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Primary Trained Teachers and on 21.9.2007, JPSC issued an amended advertisement informing that the candidates, who were about to appear in the final examination of their Teachers Training course or waiting for results, were also eligible for appearing in the examination to be held by the JPSC for the post of Primary Trained Teacher. JPSC issued another advertisement on 24.10.2007, whereby the Para-Teachers, who were pursuing Diploma in Primary Education (DPE) course from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and who were about to appear in the final examination of DPE course or waiting for the result of the said course, were also made eligible for appearing in the examination of the Primary Trained Teachers and the last date of submission of form was extended till 2.11.2007 The review petitioner applied for the said post and appeared in the examination held on 10.8.2008 and was declared successful but the result was kept pending for non-submission of his Training Certificate (DPE certificate). The review petitioner appeared for DPE examination in December 2008. On 30.5.2009, JPSC published the result in which the review petitioner was declared successful but his result was kept pending due to non-submission of training certificate. Case of the Review petitioner is that after publication of the result, the last date for submission of DPE certificate was fixed as 30.7.2009 and the petitioner submitted DPE certificate on 3.8.2009 in the office of the JPSC and in spite of submission of certificate of passing DPE examination, his case was not considered.

The Review petitioner filed W.P(S) No. 6071/2009, which was dismissed on 17.7.2012 Thereafter the review petitioner filed LPA No. 47/2013 and the same was dismissed by the order dated 8.3.2013 holding that the decision rendered in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali v. State of Jharkhand, (2008 (4) JLJR 184) : (2008 (2) AJR Jhar R 874 was not applicable. The Division Bench of this Court further held that in the said case of Md. Sajjad Ali (2008 (4) JLJR 184), the requirement was only of completion of the course of DPE and not of submission of certificate of passing the course and hence, the said case was not applicable to the facts of the case of the review petitioner. After dismissal of the appeal, the review petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, JPSC, on 12.4.2013 requesting to review the decision. The petitioner also made an application on 12.4.2013 to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, for review of the decision. The petitioner seeks review of the order passed in LPA No. 47/2013 on the ground that (i) the decision of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali (2008 (4) JLJR 184) was not properly considered and (ii) similarly placed candidates, who submitted the DPE certificate on 1.10.2009 long after the extended dated - 30.7.2009, were considered and appointed and only the case of the review petitioner was not considered for appointment.

3. The respondent-JPSC filed a detailed counter, stating that at the time of conducting the written examination by JPSC on 10.8.2008, the review petitioner had not appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education and that the review petitioner had appeared in the said examination only in the month of December 2008, i.e after 10.11.2008 and the DPE certificate was issued to him on 31.7.2009 and the review petitioner was not eligible for appointment, in view of the fact that he was not possessing the requisite qualification up to the last date, i.e 10.11.2008, fixed by the JPSC for submission of DPE certificate/B.Ed certificate. We have heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned JC to GP-II and Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC.

4. The court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used in Order 47 Rule 1. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely, (i) discovery of new and important matter of 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 or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

5. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an apparent error, which in one glance can be detected without advancing long drawn arguments of either side. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. Reappraisal of evidence or materials is not permissible. The “review” is by no means “an appeal in disguise”.

6. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the review petitioner, contended that learned single Judge and this Court failed to appreciate that as per the advertisement, the candidates, who have completed the DPE course and were about to appear in the examination, were allowed to appear in the examination held by the JPSC for the post of Primary Trained Teachers and the Court failed to appreciate that the only eligibility of appearing in the examination in question was “training” and the review petitioner had already completed his DPE course and the Court had not kept this aspect in view. It was further submitted that the learned single Judge as well as this Court failed to take into consideration the law laid down in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali (2008 (4) JLJR 184) : (2008 (2) AIR Jhar R 874) and since the applicability of the decision of the said judgment was not properly considered, the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No. 47/2013 suffers from serious error of law, which requires to be reviewed.

7. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC, submitted that on the date of examination, the review petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of the advertisement, since the review petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification upto the last date, i.e 10.11.2008 fixed by the JPSC for submission of the Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed, certificate and the Court rightly held that the case of the review petitioner was not fit to be considered. Insofar as Md. Sajjad Ali's case (2008 (4) JLJR 184) : 2008 (2) AJR Jhar R 874) is concerned, learned counsel submitted that in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali (2008 (4) JLJR 184), the only requirement was of “completion of Teachers Training Course”, whereas in relation of the selection of the review petitioner, the requirement is not only of completion of Teachers Training course but also of “submission of certificate of passing Teachers Training Course” and the Division Bench of this Court rightly held that Md. Sajjad Ali case (2008 (4) JLJR 184) has no application.

8. Pursuant to the requisition dated 6.3.2007 from the Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, JPSC started selection process for appointment of Primary Trained Teachers in the State of Jharkhand. Rule 2(kha) of the Appointment Rules, 2002 and amended Rule 2003 was further amended by the State Government. JPSC issued Advertisement No. 5/2007 on 20.4.2007 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Primary Trained Teachers in the State of Jharkhand. Vide Notification No. 8.MUI-296/03/691 dated 14.8.2007, the State Government again amended Rule 2(kha) of the Appointment Rules. After amendment of the aforesaid Appointment Rules by the State Government, the JPSC extended the last date of submission of the application forms as 27.10.2007 and also issued corrigendum to the said effect. The English translation of Clause 1 and Clause 4 of the said corrigendum, which are relevant in this case, are as follows:—

“Clause - 1

Such candidates, who have fulfilled the terms and conditions of Teachers Training as mentioned in earlier published Advertisement No. 5/07[eligible (b)] and is about to appear in Teachers Training Examination, shall be allowed to submit application form for examination to be conducted for Teacher recruitment, and they shall be allowed to appear in the examination, but such candidates have to submit their Teachers Training result before the time fixed by the Commission for publication of the result.

Clause - 4

Such candidates have to necessarily submit certificate of passing in the Training to the Commission within three months after the conducting of competition examination for the appointment of Teachers published earlier by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, otherwise recommendation shall not be made”.

9. After issuance of the aforesaid corrigendum on 21.9.2007, the Human Re sources Development Department, Govern ment of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 24.10.2007, allowed those Para-Teachers, who have completed Diploma in Primary Education Training Course from IGNOU, Ranchi and who had only to appear in the examination, to submit their application form before the JPSC for considering their candidature. Accordingly, the JPSC again issued corrigendum and further extended the date of submission of application form by those candidates on or before 12.11.2007

10. By perusal of the abovesaid Clause 1, it is evident that the candidates who have already completed the Teachers Training Session and had only to appear in the Teachers Training Examination could appear in the examination conducted by the JPSC but they would have to submit the Teachers Training Certificate before the JPSC within three months as fixed by the JPSC prior to the publication of the result. It is also evident from Clause 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.9.2007, those candidates will have to submit Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed, certificate within three months from the date of written test. The review petitioner appeared in the written test held on 10.8.2008 and he was required to submit his Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed, certificate or equivalent certificate within three months, i.e by 10.11.2008, in the light of Clause 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.9.2007 so that his candidature may be considered by the JPSC. Admittedly the review petitioner had appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education from IGNOU and the examination of the said course was held in December, 2008. It is, thus, evident that at the time of conducting the written test by the JPSC on 10.8.2008, the review petitioner had not even appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education and that he appeared in the examination of Diploma in Primary Education subsequently, which was conducted in the month of December, 2008. Thus, as held by the learned single Judge and also by the Division Bench of this Court, the review petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of the advertisement, in view of the fact that the review petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification either on the date of examination conducted by the JPSC, i.e on 10.8.2008 or on the cut-off date for submission of the DPE certificate/B.Ed certificate, i.e on 10.11.2008, fixed by the JPSC.

11. After evaluation of the answer-sheets, the JPSC recommended the names of successful candidates for appointment on the post of Primary Trained Teachers on 6.6.2009 with a condition to verify the testimonials of the candidates prior to issuance of the appointment letters. Several candidates have not submitted their Teachers Training Certificates/B.Ed, certificates and in order to provide an opportunity to those candidates, the JPSC directed them to produce the Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed, certificate before the JPSC by 30.7.2009 Several candidates submitted their B.Ed, certificates before the JPSC for considering their candidature for recommendation up to the extended date, i.e 30.7.2009 The review petitioner, who appeared for the examination in December 2008, produced the DPE certificate after the said cut-off date on 3.8.2009 It is evident that on the date of examination conducted by the JPSC, neither the review petitioner possessed the requisite qualification, nor the review petitioner produced the DPE certificate before the cut-off date, i.e 10.11.2008 or by the extended cut-off date, i.e 30.7.2009 Considering these aspects, learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court held that the review petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, his candidature was not considered by the JPSC. The findings of the learned single Judge, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order.

12. The review petitioner seeks review of order dated 8.3.2013 on the ground that the ratio laid down by this Court in case of “Mohd. Sajjad Ali” (2008 4 JLJR 184) : (2008 (2) AIR Jhar R 874) covers the case of the petitioner however, the Division Bench has not properly considered the applicability of the said case while dismissing the L.P.A No. 47 of 2013. This contention does not merit acceptance. In the case of “Sajjad Ali”, the issue before the Division Bench of this Court was whemer the candidates who were declared successful and selected for appointment on the post of primary teacher were rightly denied appointment on the ground that those candidates did not possess teacher training examination till the last date for submission of application and whether in terms of advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission the only requirement was to have completed the teacher's training course. Taking note of Rule 2(Kha) and Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 and the advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the Division Bench held that the candidates having completed teacher's training before submission of application were eligible for applying for the post of teachers. It was also found that the candidates had already appeared in the teachers' training examination and they had passed the teachers' training examination before the appointment letters were issued to mem and in such view of me matter it was held that the candidates having passed B.Ed Training Examination were eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. In the case in hand, in the advertisement itself it was mentioned mat the candidates who have completed teachers' training examination and examination for which was held prior to the cut-off date, were eligible for applying for the post of Assistant Teacher. The review petitioner was required to pass teacher's training course on or before the date fixed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission as per the requirement of Clause 1 and Clause 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.09.2007 Certificate was to be submitted on or before 10.11.2008 which the review petitioner did not submit within time. Thus, the ratio of the case of “Mohd. Sajjad Ali” (2008 4 JLJR 184) is not applicable to the case of the review petitioner. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed in L.P.A No. 47 of 2013.

13. On behalf of the review petitioner, it was contended that the candidates, namely, Amit Kumar Das, Anil Kumar Rawani, Thakur Prasad Rawani and Angrej Kumar Mandal, have submitted their Diploma in Primary Education Certificate on 1.10.2009, after the cut-off date, i.e 10.11.2008 and also beyond the extended date, i.e 30.7.2009 and they have been recommended by the JPSC and while so, the case of the review petitioner has been discriminated by the JPSC in not considering his case. Drawing our attention to the copies of DPE certificates obtained through RTI Act, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that certificates of Amit Kumar Das and Thakur Prasad Rawani were issued on 20.1.2009 and the same was submitted in the office of JPSC on 1.10.2009, which is much beyond the extended date, i.e 30.7.2009, whereas the review petitioner has submitted his DPE certificate on 3.8.2009 and while so, the JPSC was not justified in not recommending the review petitioner's name for appointment as Primary Teacher. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of subsequent materials available, the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No. 47/2013 requires to be reviewed.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC submitted that four candidates have passed the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in June/August, 2008 itself, whereas the review petitioner appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in December 2008, long after the JPSC examination on 10.11.2008 and therefore, the case of the review petitioner is not on the same footing as that of those candidates.

15. In order to consider the grievance of the review petitioner that he was discriminated, we may usefully refer to the details of the four candidates and the date of their appearance in the DPE examination and date of issuance and production of DPE certificates, which are as follows:—

Name Appeared in DPE examination Date of issuance of DPE certificate Date of production of DPE certificate Amit Kumar Das June, 2008 20.1.2009 1.10.2009 Anil Kumar Rawani June, 2008 9.1.2009 1.10.2009 Thakur Prasad Rawani June, 2008 20.1.2009 1.10.2009 Angrej Kumar Mandal June, 2008 31.8.2008 ………………

16. By perusal of the above, it is clear that the above four candidates appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in June 2008, much prior to the date of the JPSC examination held on 10.11.2008, but the review petitioner appeared for the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education only in December 2008, subsequent to the JPSC examination and therefore, the review petitioner cannot contend that he is similarly placed as that of the aforesaid four candidates and that he has been discriminated.

17. The contention raised by the review petitioner is that four candidates whose names have been recommended have submitted their DPE certificate on 1.10.2009, long after the extended date, i.e 30.7.2009 Of course, all the above candidates have submitted their DPE certificates on 1.10.2009 Since those candidates were already selected, perhaps the JPSC had chosen to receive provisional DPE certificates submitted by those candidates on 1.10.2009 We are of the view that it does not amount to any discrimination. Assuming that the appointment of those four candidates have been wrongly made, that does not confer any right upon the review petitioner to seek for appointment. In the case of State of U.P v. Rajkumar Sharma ((2006) 3 SCC 330) : (2006 AIR SCW 1985), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any appointment has been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and if the State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. In para 15 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:—

“15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of UP [(1996) 7 SCC 426] : (AIR 1996 SC 540); Secy. Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35]; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321] : (1997 AIR SCW 1574); Faridabad C.T Scan Centre v. D.G Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752] : (AIR 1997 SC 3801; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [(1999) 3 SCC 494] : (AIR 1999 SC 1347); State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal [(1999) 9 SCC 240]; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi [(2003) 3 SCC 548] : (AIR 2003 SC 1241); Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437 : (AIR 2003 SC 3983) and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604]) : (AIR 2006 SC 1142)”.

18. The order dated 8.3.2013 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 47/2013 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the order. The new materials now relied upon by the review petitioner also does not warrant for review of the order dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No. 47/2013. This review application is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, this review application is dismissed.

20. Application dismissed.