ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---- This application has been filed with the following prayer: "------ that the judgment/order dated 13.02.2020 passed by this Vacation/ Single Judge may kindly be reviewed/recalled and petition be referred to Division Bench for decision a fresh according to the ground so agitated in the petition, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay ."
The applicant/petitioner filed constitutiona l petition before this Court which was dism issed vide judgment dated 13th February , 2020 with the following observations: "6. Admittedly the petitioner secured 99 marks out of 200 which is less than 50%. The petitioner claimed admission in BUMHS on special consideration, which is not permissible under the law. In the advertisement published by the respondent No.1 inviting application from the eligible candidate, clearly shows the criteria/condition laid down for the eligibility of the candidates in the following manner: "1. Eligibility . 1 (a)....
(b).......
2. It is mandatory for candidates of Balochistan province to appear in MDCA T for admission to any public sector Medical/ Dental College / institution of the province."
7. The prospectus, rules and regulations framed by the public educational institution are administrative policy of the respective institute, recognized and made applicable to all the candidates without any discrimination. It is to be noted that in academic matters the University authorities are the best judges to interpret the Rules and Regulations framed by the university authorities. The Courts are required to avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the universities to run their affairs.' Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment* the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Ilyas v.
Bahauddin Zakariva University , Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961 ), wherein it has been held that:- "5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further , a perusal of Regulation 8(F) and its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was required to obtain (CGP A) independently in each Semester for the purpose of promotion to the next Semester .
As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite (CGP A) in the 3rd Semester i.e. 2.00 (CGP A), therefore. University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned I. C.A. Bench after 'examining the case of petitioner in depth reached to the conclusion that he was required to obtain 2.00 CGP A in the 3rd Semester , therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, therefore, no interference is called for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
In this regard reliance is also placed on the case of Fakharyar v. Agriculture University Peshawar , PLD 2016 Peshawar 266."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner reiterated the contents of the application and stated that single member bench of the High Court/ Vacation Judge could not finally adjudicate the petition. The applicant appeared in entry test, secured 99 marks out of 200 marks which weighed 50%, while as per Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCA T) 50% marks were necessary . The applicant fulfilled the criteria as laid down by MDCA T.
The applicant stated that the publication was made by respondent but no distinction was made for admission in self finance or public sector .
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the relevant provision of law. The applicant is seeking review of the judgment passed by this court in C.P. No. 1437 of 2019; therefore, need not to reiterate the facts. It appeared that the applicant applied for Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCA T), whereby the applicant obtained 99 marks out of 200 marks which stand 49.5%. The respondent No. 2 has prepared Provisional Marks Sheet of MDCA T 2019-20. The list contained serial Nos.1591 to 1701. The perusal of the Test Marks Sheet revealed that serial Nos.1591 to 1620 had secured 100 marks out of 200 marks, while serial Nos.1621 to 1686 secured 99 marks, whereas serial Nos.1687 to 1701 obtained 98 Marks, meaning thereby that more than 65 candidates secured 99 marks out of 200 marks. The applicants name appeared at serial No. 1682.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that single member bench/V acation Judge could not adjudicate upon the matter on merit. The learned counsel failed to substantiate its contention. There is no embargo on the Vacation Judge of the High Court to hear the Division Bench matters while sitting as single member Bench/V acation Judge and decide it on merit. The learned counsel failed to substantiate its contention by citation or precedent of the Honorable Supreme Court or rules that ordinarily the constitutional petitions are being heard by the Division Bench. Reliance is placed on the reported judgment of Division Bench of this Court Haji Muhammad Naeem v . Sarajuddin , PLD 2017 Balochistan 65 , wherein it was held: "7. The learned counsel is well aware that Constitutional Petition bearing No.74 of 2015 was filed during winter vacations when the vacation judge (single member bench) of this court hears all the cases relating to Single Bench
(SB) and Division Bench (DB). During vacations a vacation judge while sitting as a single member bench can hear the cases pertaining to Division Bench at Katcha Peshi stage or for admission, therefore, while hearing the DB matters the vacation judge sitting singly has to decide as to whether a case for admission is made out or not and he can also grant an interim relief but, if no case for admission is made out, he can also dismiss the petition in Mine.
Neither the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution') nor the High Court Rules and Orders impose any embargo on the vacation judge of the High Court to hear the DB matters while sitting as a single member bench, except otherwise provided by any special statute, which envisages the cases to be head by a Division Bench. Therefore, the content ion of the learned counsel to this extent is without any substance and is not worth consideration being misconceived."
5. The court ordinarily would not interfere/set aside the order/ judgment on review merely on the ground that another view could be possible. It would needed not to reiterate that the court has power to review its order/ judgment when found that legal error or mistake of law floating or apparent on the surface of the order/judgment. It is settled principle that on discovery of some document subsequently could be a ground for review of order/ judgment. The court cannot consider the subsequent document which is filed with purpose to fill in the lacuna because if same practice is allowed then there will be no end to the litigation. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of routine or to rehear the case which has already been decided.
6. The review proceeding cannot subs titute hearing of appeal/ revision. Revie w also cannot be allowed on discovery of new facts if such material was available at the time of hearing petition/appeal/ revision. Reliance can be placed on the case Abdul Hakeem v . Khalid W azir 2003 SCMR 1501 .
7. The scope of review is very limited. Review can only be allowed when there is error apparent on the face of impugned order/ judgment. The party cannot be allowed to adjudicate the same facts which have already been decided. The Honorable Supreme Court in case Majid Mahmood .v. Muhammad Shafi , 2008 SCMR 554, wherein it was held: "8. The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and as finality attaches to the order , a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify , its review .----"
In another case Ali Ahmed v . Muhammad Iqbal 2009 SCMR 394 , the Honorable Supreme Court observed: "7. It was further observed that "A review by its very nature was not an appeal or rehearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the Court"."
The Honorable Supreme Court held in another case Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR, 2010 SCMR 1049 : ".......It is well-settled by now that "where petitioner took up all material grounds taken by him during the course of hearing of appeal and dealt with and decided in judgment under review and thus sought rehearing of arguments addressed by him at the time of hearing and disposal of appeal and wished a different decision from one already given without satisfying jurisdictional requirement necessary for maintaining review petition. The petition was dismissed Akbar Ali Bukhari v. State Bank of Pakistan 1981 SCMR 518. The re-hearing of the case in garb of review petition cannot be allowed as held in case titled Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741 and moreso review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re-appraisement by Supreme Court Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033 (1), Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCMR 89, Kala Khan v.
Misri Khan 1979 SCMR 347 and Saghir Ali v. Mehar Din 1968 SCMR 729 .
3. 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 discuss ion or process of ratiocination.
Orders based on erroneous assumption of material facts, or without adverting to a provision of law, or a departure from undisputed construction of law and Constitution, may, amount to error apparent on face of the record. Error , on the other hand, must not only be apparent but must also have a material bearing on fate of case and be not of inconsequential import. If judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record. Where order unde r review did not appear to have been vitiated by any error on face of the record nor any other good and sufficient reason was given for review of order . Petition for review was dismissed".
Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR 104, Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Pakistan 1969 SCMR 800, Rehmatullah v.
Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner 1969 SCMR 1047 (2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042 (1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418, Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 PCr.LJ 909, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State 1979 SCMR 427, Rizwan Co-operative Society Ltd. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1978 SCMR 449, Farzand Ali v. Mohd. Arif 1979 SCMR 281 and Rashiduddin Qureshi v.
State 1979 SCMR 99 ."
8. The review jurisdiction is confined to the patent error or mistake floating on surfa ce of the record. It was held by the Honorable Supreme Court in case Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue , 2007 SCMR 755 : "-------This is settled law -that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in .review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floati ng on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such error of law in the judgment or interference in the review jurisdiction."
The applicant has failed to point out any apparent error or mistake in the order in question. It is settled proposition of law that power of review is only enable to correct error alone. The review cannot equate with an appeal or it cannot be made basis for rehearing of the case. Upshot of above discussion is that this application lacks merit, therefore, same is dismissed.