Mohammad Azam Khan, C.J-- The titled appeals by leave of the Court arise out of the judgment of the High Court delivered in review petition No. 197 of 2014 on 29th May, 2014, whereby review petition filed by the appellants, herein, has been dismissed.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of the appeals are that the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court on 17th December , 2012, alleging therein that Public Service Commission issued advertisement No. 1/2007 and invited applications from the desirous candidates for appointment against the posts of Lecturers in different subjects.
Being qualified, they also submitted applications and participated in the test and interview . In the result of test and interview , they were placed in waiting list. They alleged that the department with mala-fide intention did not send requisition of all the available posts. Some posts were withheld with mala-fide intention to accommodate their favourites. They further claimed that later on the said posts were advertised. They moved an application to the Prime Minister on 22nd November , 2012 to withdraw the requisition and adjust them as they are in waiting list. After necessary proceeding, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 19th June, 2014. Dissatisfied, the appellants filed review petition No. 197/2014 in the High Court on 16th July, 2014. A learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the review petition on the strength of judgment of this Court reported as Mst. Tanveer Ashraf & 25 others vs. AJ&K Government and 2 others (201 1 SCR 528), hence, these appeals by leave of the Court.
3. Raja Shujaat Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals argued that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the record. The High Court has dismissed the review petition without adverting to the record. The appellants have proved from record that some posts were withheld by the department.
Had the High Court gone through the whole record then the review petition should have been admitted. The learned counsel requested for acceptance of appeals.
4. While controverting the arguments, Mr. Raza Ali Khan, Advocate General, submitted that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The appellants filed review petition from the judgment of the High Court in the High Court. The scope of review is very limited. The review petition in the High Court lies only on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record. Review petition cannot be heard as it is an appeal. The learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the review petition in accordance with law .
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The appellants, herein, claimed in the writ petition that in response to advertisement No. 1/2007, they submitted applications for various subjects and participated in the test and interview . They qualified the same but could not achieve the merit position and were placed in the waiting list. The respondents withheld some posts with mala-fide intention. All the posts were not sent to the Public Service Commission for advertisement. The writ petition was dismissed by observing that no post was withheld. Instead of filing petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, the appellants filed review petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court. Under rules 43 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, the High Court has power to review its judgment on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of C.P.C. The Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. postulates that any person considering himself aggrieved, may file a review petition on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason.
6. The powers of review are different from the powers of appeal. A review petition cannot be heard and entertained as it is an appeal from the judgment of the same Court. Review is permissible on the ground on the basis of an error apparent on the face of record, on discovery of new fact or evidence, which was not in the knowledge of a party , but review is not permissible for re-hearing the whole case as an appeal. It was observed by this Court in case reported as Kamran Hafeez vs. Gul Zaman & 7 others (2015 SCR 1505) as under:- "...It has been consistent practice of law and this Court that a point which has been argued, discussed and decided, shall not be opened to review . Our this view finds supports from an unreported judgment of this Court titled Imtiaz Amed Abbasi vs. Syed Shabbir Shah Gillani & others (Civil Review Petition No. 24 of 2013, decided on 20.2.2014), it was observed in paragraph 5 as under:-
5. It is settled law that in civil proceedings on the ground of error apparent on the face of record, this Court has the jurisdiction to review its judgment. Moreover , the scope of review is limited, and it is settled that the judgment can only be reviewed if there is an error apparent on the face of record. it is also celebrated principle of law that the review petition cannot be argued like an appeal."
Similarly in the case reported as Azad Govt. & 7 others vs. Shakoor Bashir & 39 others (2011 SCR 228), it was observed as under:- "...The bare reading of the grounds of the review petition leads to the conclusion that the applicants want reopening and rehearing of the case. It is a consistent practice of this Court that rehearing and reopening of a case is out of the scope of review . The review is only competent when there is an error apparent on the face of record..."
7. The appellants failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment of the High Court while arguing the review petition nor any new fact or evidence was discovered on the basis of which the review petition was permissible. The High Court had already resolved the whole controversy while deciding the writ petition, therefore, dismissal of review petition was perfectly in accordance with law .
The result of the above discussion is that finding no force in these appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.