' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Petitioner, through the present application, seeks review of order, dated 5-8-2005, whereby this Court dismissed his constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,14308 of 2005).
2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of "insubordination", which penalty was maintained by the Honourable Administrative Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 2-8-1985. He adds that term "insubordination" does not come within the purview and scope of term "moral turpitude". He submits that no law can be applied retrospectively, unless expressly provided so. He has relied upon Articles 12 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He has also produced a copy of order, dated 8-8-2005, passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No,2079 of 2005 (Waheed Murad and another v. Ch. Muhammad Aslam, District Judge/Returning Officer/Appellate Authority, Union Council Elections, District Sialkot and 7 others).
3. Petitioner's constitutional petition was dismissed by this Court, on 5-8-2005, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel at the time of arguing the writ petition. None of the contentions, now raised by the learned counsel, as recorded above, was raised before this Court at the time of hearing of constitutional petition. It is settled law that review cannot be made a pretext for re-arguing whole case and the matter cannot be reopened under the garb of review application. If any case-law is need, the judgment reported as Muhammad Zafarullah Khan v. Muhammad Khan and another 1975 SCM R 473 can be referred.
4. Petitioner's case, as made out in the instant application, does not fall within the scope of Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C., inasmuch as no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the learned counsel. The petitioner has produced copy .Of the order, dated 2-8- 1985, which was not produced, originally, with the constitutional petition, however, even that does not advance the case of the petitioner, as the production of copy of that order, at this stage, does not amount to discovery of new and important matter or evidence. To my mind, no case of review of order has been made out and, thus, I am not inclined to review the said order.
5. As regards the order, dated 8-8-2005, relied upon by the learned counsel, it has distinguishing features. Firstly, in that case the appeal of the petitioner was pending before the Federal Service Tribunal for adjudication, while in the present case, removal of the petitioner from service has attained finality since 2-8-1985, secondly, in that case vires of provisions of section 152(h) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 were challenged, while in the present case, the petitioner did not challenge the vires of said provision in his constitutional petition and lastly the said order was not passed in exercise of review jurisdiction, while the application in hand seeks review of order.
Additionally, the said order is a leave granting order. Thus, the order, referred to by the learned counsel, does not at all, advance the case of the petitioner, specially, when he has filed the review application.
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present application is devoid of merits, hence the same stands dismissed in amine.