Review jurisdiction is narrow; a disputed date of birth and later gazette entry did not justify reopening the writ order.

Review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record, newly discovered material despite due diligence, or other exceptional grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits. Applying that standard, the court found that the petitioner's school records and service register consistently recorded the date of birth as 15.06.1958, while the claimed later correction and gazette entry were unsupported by independent evidence proving an actual birth date of 18.10.1959. A mistaken gazette entry alone did not create a legal basis for review, so no ground for review was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order in the writ petition required review on the ground of an alleged mistake in the recorded date of birth and the subsequent gazette entry, and whether any error apparent on the face of the record or other ground for review was established.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence not earlier available despite due diligence, or other exceptional grounds such as grave procedural irregularity. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be used to reargue the merits or to treat the review as an appeal in disguise. The petitioner's school records and service register consistently recorded the date of birth as 15.06.1958, while the asserted subsequent correction and the later gazette entry were not supported by independent legal evidence proving an actual birth date of 18.10.1959. A mistaken entry in the gazette notification could not, by itself, create a legal right to review the earlier decision.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the challenge to the earlier order failed.

---