SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.- The petitioner Imdad Ullah Khan seeks review of judgment dated 11.06.2015, rendered in writ petition No.258-D/201 1, whereby this Court accepted the writ petition.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in earlier round of litigation, the petitioner Imdad Ulllah Khan brought constitutional petition No. 258-D/201 1, seeking the following relief:- It is therefore most respectfully prayed that by issuance of an appropriate writ and on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the appointment of the responde ntsNo.5 & 6 may very graciously be declared as null and void, without lawful authority , without jurisdiction and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner and the official respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor arising out of the termination of respondents No. 5 & 6 or any other vacant post, if any, with such other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the given circumstances, deems appropriate in the interest of petitioner .
3. This Court after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the writ petition was accepted and following relief was granted to the petitioner:- For what has been discussed above, we accept the instant writ petition and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor from December, 2010, the day on which the result was announced. However, this appointment shall only be seen for the purpose of seniority. The petitioner is not entitled to back benefit.
4. Through instant review petition, the petitioner seeks to re-visit the impugned aforesaid judgment on the ground that he deserves monetary benefits from the back date i.e December , 2010.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the review petition has addressed at length this Court and all the contentions raised have been dilated upon, discussed and decided vide judgment impugned in a comprehensive manner. The attention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to paragraphs Nos. 4 & 5 of the judgment impugned which cannot be reviewed without any lawful jurisdiction which is lacking.
7. There is no cavil to the proposition that reversal of conclusion earlier reached by this Court after full consideration of the question is not possible in exercise of review jurisdiction as a review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. It is to be noted that in pursuance of judgment of this Court, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor from the retrospective date i.e December 2010, however , he was not granted pecuniary benefit with retrospective date i.e from the date of appointment as Assistant Professor . It is worth mentioning that re-arguing the case on merit is beyond the scope of review petition and does not constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review . In this behalf reliance can be placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Hussain vs. Zohra Bibi (PLD 1990 SC 924), Muhammad Sarwar vs. Asad Hakim (1983 SCMR 177), Jalal vs. Nazir Ahmad (1980 SCMR 320) and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto vs. The State (PLD 1979 SC 741) wherein it was held that re-hearing of the case in garb of review petition cannot be allowed.
8. The principles upon which a review can be granted are well settled i.e there must be some new point based upon discovery of new evidence which could not with diligence, have been found out on the previous occasion. A review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any ground discussed hereinabove to re-visit the earlier judgment. This review petitio n has been examined in the light of criterion as laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgment mentioned above and we feel no case of review is made out, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.