Manzoor Ahmad Padder vs State Of Jk & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 971 j&K/2

                                                                    Serial No.06
                                                                 Regular Cause List


      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR


                                                         RPSW No. 41/2013

Manzoor Ahmad Padder
                                                             ... Petitioner(s)
                                Through: -
                      Mr P. S. Ahmad, Advocate with
                      Mr Arshad Ahmad, Advocate.

                                     V/s
State of JK & Ors.
                                                           ... Respondent(s)

Through: -

None.

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

(ORDER) 26.08.2021 This Review Petition is filed on behalf of the applicant/

Respondent No.5 in the main Petition seeking review of Judgment dated 23 rd

of October, 2013 passed in SWP No. 2499/2011, whereby the Writ Petition

of the non-applicant/ Petitioner stands allowed and re-advertisement notice

issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Ashmuqam quashed, with further

direction to the Respondents to consider the claim of the non-applicant/

Petitioner for allowing him to join as per the provisions of the Scheme.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/ Respondent No.5,

perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

At the outset, what requires to be stated is that in the instant

review Petition, the applicant/ Respondent No.5 has touched the merits of the

case, which, in a review Petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the review Petition have already been decided

and findings returned thereon by the Court and, if the applicant/ Respondent

No.5 was aggrieved of the said findings, she ought to have availed the remedy

under law for challenging the same in appropriate Court. In fact, the instant

review Petition, on grounds enumerated therein, appears to be a disguised

appeal. The grounds taken by the applicant/ Respondent No.5 are either that

the findings recorded by the Court are not legally tenable, or that the same are

perverse, or that the same are unacceptable. A judgment may be wrong,

erroneous, incorrect, perverse, legally untenable, etc. etc., but, the only course

available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal the said judgment. Such

grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as

would call for a review.

The law is that a review cannot also be used as a tool for changing

the opinion/ view of the Court. In a review Petition, it is only an error, apparent

on the face of the record, which can be considered and gone into by the Court.

It is not open to the Court, dealing with review of its decision, to re-appreciate

the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible.

Conclusion arrived at, on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the rival

parties, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is

an error apparent on the face of the record. So far as the grievance of the

applicant/ Respondent No.5 on merits of the case is concerned, virtually she

seeks the same relief which she had sought at the time of arguing the main

matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer has been refused, no review Petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original

matter. It is well settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with

appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed

by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition

of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded

adjudications. The power of review has to be exercised with extreme care,

caution and circumspection, that too, only in exceptional cases.

In the above background, I do not find any error, apparent on the

face of the record, in the judgment dated 23rd of October, 2013 passed by this

Court in SWP No. 2499/2011, as would warrant its recall on review. It being

so, this review Petition is found to be meritless and, as a sequel thereto, same

shall stand dismissed, along with any connected CM(s) pending therewith.

Interim directions, if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge SRINAGAR August 26th, 2021 "TAHIR"

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2021.08.27 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document