Muhammad Younas Tahir, J. The captioned review petition has been filed for seeking review of the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019 on 27.12.2022.
2. The brief facts forming the background of the instant review petition are that the petitioner, herein, filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal alleging therein that he was appointed as Lab Attendant, B-2 in the office of District Health Services C.D.C., Muzaffarabad vide order dated 17.10.2006. Later on, he was up-graded from B-2 to B-4 by service structure for the Para Medical Staff. It was alleged that in the Office of Director Health Services C.D.C., Muzaffarabad, a post of Junior Clerk became vacant due to promotion of Raja Shafqat Ali Khan as Senior Clerk. It was further alleged that against the said vacant post, the official respondents issued the appointment order of Respondent No. 6, herein, vide order dated 20.01.2016 by violating 20% quota fixed for promotion for the employees of Health Department. The learned Service Tribunal, after necessary proceedings, dismissed the appeal through the judgment dated 15.12.2018. The petitioner, herein, preferred an appeal before this Court against the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal dated 15.12.2018, which was accepted and a direction has been issued to the concerned department to follow the principle laid down by this Court in the case reported as Aurangzeb vs. Muhammad Zia Khan & 2 others [2016 SCR 96], vide judgment under review dated 27.12.2022, so, the same is the subject-matter of this review petition.
3. On 09.02.2023, Ch. Muhammad Kaleem Afsar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was not present before the Court, however, he was directed to file written arguments within three days and he filed the same. In his written arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner is permanent employee of the Health Department serving as Lab Attendant, B-2, having meritorious service carrier extending over 13 years without any complaint having qualification Matric. He further stated that a post of Junior Clerk, B-7 become vacant due to promotion of Senior Clerk and the official respondents advertised the same against the quota of District Neelum, and the appointment of the private respondent was made against the said quota.
According to the learned counsel, this Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment under review, discussed about the Government notification dated 29.09.1999 through which 20% quota has been fixed for the post of Junior Clerk, however, this Court by leaving aside the moot point of the case resolved the controversy in the light of the case law reported as Aurangzeb vs. Muhammad Zia Khan & 2 others [2016 SCR 96], whereas, the petitioner is claiming the enforcement of the Government notification dated 29.09.1999 but this Court while deciding the judgment under review did not take into account this important aspect of the case which is an error apparent on the face of the judgment. The learned counsel further stated in his written arguments that the disputed post relates to the 20% quota reserved by notification dated 29.09.1999, and the official respondents in their written statement acknowledged the availability of the quota but while alleging stigma of not passing the test and interview and inclined to fill in the post by initial recruitment, whereas for promotion, no test and interview is required. The learned counsel lastly requested that the above- mentioned errors/mistakes are apparent on the face of the judgment under review which is sufficient for review of the judgment.
5. We have given our thought to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his written arguments and perused the judgment under review along with the record with utmost care.
6. The petitioner, herein, sought review of the judgment on the ground that the petitioner is claiming the enforcement of the Government notification dated 29.09.1999, through which 20% quota has been fixed for the post of Junior Clerk but this Court has not discussed the moot point of the case and resolved the controversy in the light of the case law reported as Aurangzeb vs. Muhammad Zia Khan & 2 others [2016 SCR 96]. It is an admitted position that the post of Junior Clerk fell vacant in the office of Director Health Services, C.D.C., Muzaffarabad. The question, whether the posts of BPS-1 to BPS-5 in the offices at District Headquarter are reserved only for the residents of the constituency where such offices are situated, has already been resolved in the judgment under review in the light of the case reported as Aurangzeb vs. Muhammad Zia Khan & 2 others [2016 SCR 96], wherein, this Court has laid down the principle that the posts of BPS-1 to BPS-5 in any of the offices situated in the capital, like the Secretariat, the Supreme Court, the High Court, attached departments, special institutions, autonomous bodies, the residents of whole of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and refugees settled in Pakistan are entitled to apply against such posts.
7. In our considered opinion, the points finally resolved one way or the other cannot be reopened, unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of record. The review cannot be argued like an appeal as no error flouting on the face of judgment is pointed out. A review petition is competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record or for a reason which is analogous to the apparent mistake. It is well settled principle of law that the finding given in an appeal or petition after considering the relevant material on the record, would not justify the review of an order or judgment. The scope of review is very limited. It cannot be treated at par with an appeal and the points finally resolved one way or the other, cannot be reopened in the garb of review petition. Re- arguing or reopening of a case like an appeal is not warranted in law. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not fall with the purview of review petition.
In the light of what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to make out any case to admit the instant review petition. Therefore, finding no force in this review petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to the costs.