Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:

1. By way of this Review Petition, the petitioners seek review of judgment dated 03.08.2023, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matter, in terms whereof, this Court upheld order dated 25.05.2017, passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 3337 of 2016, titled as Lekh Ram and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others by way of dismissal of CWP No. 2004 of 2017 and CWP No.629 of 2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as this Court has not appreciated that the appointment of the private respondents was on stop gap basis and, that too, only for a period of one year. No other point was urged.

3. Incidentally, the State of Himachal Pradesh has neither sought review of the judgment in issue nor the contention of the review petitioners has been supported by the State.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited and another, (2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 11 [LQ/SC/2023/723 ;] has reiterated that power to review may not be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits, as the same would be the domain of the Court of appeal. Hon”ble Supreme Court further held that the power of review should not be confused with appellate powers as the appellate power can correct all manners of errors committed by the Subordinate Courts. Hon’ble Supreme Court also reiterated that while exercising the review jurisdiction, the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-35 of the judgment has held as under:-

“35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. 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 conceivable be two opinions.”

5. This Court by way of judgment, review of which is being sought, upheld the order passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, as the judgment of the Tribunal was based upon the judgment of this Court delivered in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, titled as Narender Singh Naik Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 14.09.2010, which judgment in turn was based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officer’s Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] . Incidentally, the judgment of this Court in Narender Singh Naik’s case (supra) was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Record further reveals that the original applicants before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, after their initial recruitment through the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, continuously served without any break till their regularization and in this background also, the ground for seeking review which stands spelled out by us in the above part of this order does not hold any water. The argument on which review is being sought hardly demonstrates any error on the face of the record. Therefore, as no case for review is made out, the petition is dismissed.