Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Sabiya Rashid And Others vs Sabiya Rashid And Others‟ on 9 October, 2025
Bench: Sindhu Sharma, Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
RP 86/2023 in
LPA 87/2023
Reserved on : 19.09.2025
Pronounced on : 09.10.2025
Sabiya Rashid and Others ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shahid Habib, Advocate
v.
UT of JK and Others
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. By the medium of the instant review petition, the review petitioners
are seeking review of the judgment/order dated 12.10.2023, passed by
the Division Bench in LPA No. 87/2023, titled „University of Kashmir
and Others vs. Sabiya Rashid and Others‟.
2. The applicants/review petitioners are seeking review of the judgment
and order dated 12.10.2023, on the grounds that there are apparent
errors on the face of record which require to be rectified. The review
petitioners are primarily referring to the observation of this Court
made in the judgment under review at Paragraph No. 61, which for
facility of reference is reproduced herein:
"61. ....The present case deals with a proposal of
regularizing services of contractual appointees by creating
supernumerary posts which would entail additional expenses
and these supernumerary posts are not yet born on the cadre,
and as such, we are of the view that the said decision in Dr.
Asif Ahmad Sheikh's case (supra) will not be applicable in
the present case..."
3. The review petitioners while referring to the aforesaid observation of
this Court made in the judgment under review, are projecting that this
Court has landed in error in holding that the ratio, laid down by this
Court in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh's case (supra), is not applicable to
the case of the review petitioners, in that, the financial concurrence
was not required to be obtained from the finance department in the
case of review petitioners as well and by holding otherwise, the court
has landed in error which needs to be reviewed.
4. The review petitioners, besides the above-stated/projected error are
also referring to the number of the LPA in memo of parties having
wrongly been reflected as LPA No. 853/2023 instead of LPA No.
87/2023 to again project that this Court has completely
overlooked/glossed over the record.
5. Per contra, respondents, upon notice have filed their objections to the
review petition, projecting inter alia, that the judgment under review
does not call for any revisiting as there is absolutely no error apparent
on the face of record that calls for such revisitation.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and have
perused the judgment under review as also the allied material
available.
7. Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners submits that this
Court while passing the judgment under review has proceeded on
wrong assumptions against the clear stand of the University, thereby,
committing an error, apparent on the face of record which requires to
be corrected by allowing the instant review petition.
8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits
that the judgment under review is quite reasoned and does not call for
any review as there is no error, whatsoever on the face of record,
which may warrant a revisitation.
9. Precisely, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners seeks
review of the judgment dated 12.10.2023, on the sole premise that this
Court, while passing the judgment under review has misinterpreted the
resolution of the University dated 09.10.2018, whereby 80
supernumerary posts of helpers were resolved to be created and the
funds of Rs. 261.5/- lacs were resolved to be projected at R.E. 2018-19
stage with the Finance Department (J&K Govt.). The learned senior
counsel believes that the University, by such resolution, had not
sought financial concurrence from the Government, as was the
situation in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh's case (supra), and the Court by
taking the resolution in question in such direction has committed an
error which impacted the outcome of the LPA.
10. The resolution dated 09.10.2018 of the respondent University, in the
first instance, is taken note of herein:
"ITEM NO: 11
To consider the following:-
i. Creation of 80 supernumerary positions of Helpers in the
SL Level of ₹14800-47100 (SL1) and
ii. Allocation of funds on account of monthly salary of the
persons to be adjusted as Helpers against the
aforementioned positions as under:
Financial Year Approx. financial implications
2018-19 (for B.E) ₹76.70 (for five months)
2019-20 (for R.E) ₹184.08
Considered the following:
i. Creation of 80 supernumerary positions of Helpers in the SL
Level of ₹14800-47100 (SL1) and
ii. Allocation of funds on account of monthly salary of the
persons to be adjusted as Helpers against the aforementioned
positions as under:
Financial Year Approx. financial implications
2018-19 (for B.E) ₹76.70 (for five months)
2019-20 (for R.E) ₹184.08
Resolved:
That the creation of 80 supernumerary positions of
Helpers in the SL ₹14800-47100 be endorsed for adoption
and funds of ₹ 261.5 lacs be projected at R.E 2018-19
Stage with the Finance Department (J&K Government)."
11. This Court does not find the possibility of any other interpretation to
the resolution in question than the one taken by this Court in terms of
the judgment under review. The University, in unambiguous terms, is
seeking to project the cause of budgetary support in respect of the
supernumerary posts with the Finance Department and we believe that
any attempt aimed at expanding the scope of interpretation of the said
resolution would be, nonetheless, an exercise in futility.
12. Having considered the factual matrix, we now segue to the legal
principles governing the subject. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure in terms whereof the present application/review petition has
been filed is desirable to be taken note of herein:
"ORDER XLVII
1. Application for review of judgment.---(1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved---
a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could made,
or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the
ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the
appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the
Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review."
13. The above extracted provision of law would emphatically make it
clear that the exercise of review is required to be made when the court
is convinced that there is an apparent error on the face of record.
However, in the instant case, we are not persuaded to agree with the
contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that there
exists an error apparent on the face of record that warrants
revisiting/reviewing the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023.
Furthermore, we are conscious of the fact that this court, under its
review jurisdiction, has not to discuss the merits of the case afresh
which the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners probably
wants us to do. The review petition cannot be allowed to be pursued as
an appeal in disguise.
14. The Apex court in its latest pronouncement rendered in case titled,
'Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna‟, reported as 2025 INSC 1080, has laid
down the same principle. Paragraph No. 19 of the said judgment,
being relevant, is taken note of as under:
"19. The impugned order has not adverted to an error
apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an
error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the
parties. The review order records a few findings extending
far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for
partition. The order impugned has exceeded the jurisdiction
of review by a court."
15. We may hasten to add that Mr. Asif Maqbool, Assisting Counsel to
learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, produced a copy
of communication dated 27.05.2024 which reflects that the
respondent-University has already acted upon the directives of this
Court passed in LPA No. 87/2023 vide judgment and order dated
12.10.2023, thereby, shrinking the scope even further.
16. For all what has been said hereinbefore, the instant review petition is
found to be without merit, therefore, dismissed.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
09.10.2025
"Misba "
Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes/No.
Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes/No
