SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J. Through the instant review petition filed u/s 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C), the present petitioners seek a review of the judgment / order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 222-M/2023 whereby their case was dismissed.
2. The brief factual background leading to the filing of this review petition is that the respondents had advertised vacancies for the post of PST, for which, the petitioners duly and successfully qualified the test. However, during quantifying the marks ,of successful candidates, the marks for Associate Degree in Education (ADE) were not awarded to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners submitted appeals before the competent authority. Upon consideration, marks were allocated to them, resulting in petitioner No. 1, securing 123.38 marks and petitioner No. 2, obtaining 121.74 marks.
3. Despite their superior merit, the petitioners were excluded from the appointment process by the respondents while candidates securing lower marks were appointed pursuant to the impugned order No. 13046-54 dated 11.02.2023. The petitioners, aggrieved by this action, submitted a written representation. In response, they were informed vide letter No. 16949 dated 21.02.2023, that they were ineligible for the post due to:
(i) The ADE being obtained after acquiring their master's degree; and
(ii) The time gap between their master's and ADE degrees being less than two years.
4. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners filed writ petition No. 222-M/2023, wherein comments were sought from respondent No. 3, who duly submitted the same. It was asserted therein that the petitioner No.1 obtained his master's degree in 2015, implying his bachelor's degree dated back to 2013. Both degrees were considered by the respondents during the quantification process.
However, since petitioner No. 1, obtained ADE in 2019 Post-master's degree. The ADE was excluded from consideration, despite being equivalent to a Bachelor's degree. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 also acquired his ADE after his master's degree. Hence, for both petitioners, their bachelor's and master's degrees were considered, but the ADE was excluded for having been acquired.
Subsequently, this Court, after granting full opportunity of hearing to both the parties, dismissed the writ petition through judgment dated 20.01.2025. the instant petition seeks review of the said dismissal, with the following prayer:- "it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i. Review, recall and set aside the judgment / order dated 20.01.2025 passed in W.P No. 222- M/2023, in the interest of justice: ii. Allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners against the advertised posts in light of their qualifications including ADE, and in accordance with their merit position: iii. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to have their ADE (Associate Degree in Education) counted for quantification purposes, regardless of its completion after the master's degree, as has been the consistent practice of the respondents."
5. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General were heard and record has been examined.
6. A perusal of the prayer in the instant review petition reveals that the petitioners are essentially seeking the same relief as in the original writ petition, namely, directions to the respondents to consider the ADE for quantification purposes despite its acquisition after the master's degree. In effect, the petitioners are attempting to re-open a matter already conclusively adjudicated by this Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2025.
7. The legal issue now raised have already been comprehensively addressed in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned judgment. As for the allegations regarding irregularities in the appointments of Muhammad Saeed Badshah and Israr Ahmed, the same were discussed in para-No. 5 of the judgment under review.
8. The core contention of the petitioners' counsel is essentially a plea for re-hearing of the matter, which falls outside the jurisdictional scope of review as envisaged under the civil procedure code.
This Court cannot permit a review petition to serve a surrogate for appeal or re-litigation of adjudicated issues. Further, the petitioners have not produced any new or important evidence or matter that could not have been brought on record earlier with due diligence, nor have they established any other sufficient cause to justify the filing of this review petition. In the absence of such discovery or cause and where all legal and factual issues have been adjudicated upon this Court finds no reason to revisit or substitute the conclusions recorded in the judgment under review.
9. An examination of grounds raised in the instant petition confirms that they do not satisfy the legal standards required for maintainability of review. This, however, is not permissible. The powers of review conferred upon this Court u/s 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are limited and do not extend to matters appropriate for appellate jurisdiction as held by the apex Court in the case of "Sajid Mehmood versus Muhammad Shafi" (2008 SCMR 554) that: - "The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and as finally attaches to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review."
10. The fundamental condition for entertaining review petition is the demonstration of an error apparent on the face of record, the correction of which is imperative to prevent a miscarriage of justice. No such error is evident in the judgment under review. The scope of review is confined to correcting manifest errors and does not extend to reconsideration of already adjudicated issues. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to establish any such manifest error. Accordingly, no cause for review is made out.
11. The jurisdictional contours governing the scope of a review petition are well-settled and have been constantly delineated by the superior Courts. A review is not an appeal in disguise, nor does it afford a party a second opportunity to re-argue a matter already adjudicated on merits. The review jurisdiction, as encapsulated u/s 114 read with order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is exercisable only upon the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not be produced by applicant at the time the decree or order was passed, or upon demonstration of a manifest error apparent on the face of record. It does not extend to re-appreciation of facts or reconsidered of legal grounds already examined. The Courts have repeatedly emphasized that even an erroneous decision, if rendered after due adjudication, does not ipso facto furnish a ground for review unless it leads to miscarriage of justice that is manifest and self-evident from the record itself. Thus, the power of review is to be invoked with judicial circumspection and strict adherence to the settled legal parameters, lest it undermine the finality and sanctity of judicial pronouncement.
12. Needless to reiterate here that the power of review may be exercised when there is a discovery of new fact or evidence, or when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. In a recent case titled as Ahmad Sikander v. Commissioner Inland Revenue, AEOI Zone, Lahore reported as 2025 SCMR 140, the apex Court has elaborately discussed the parameters of review in the following manner: "4. As mentioned above, the power of review may be exercised when there is a discovery of new fact or evidence, or when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. What is meant by an error apparent on the face of record is significant and needs to be delineated in detail. This court in Ghulam Murtaza v. Abdul Salani Shah, has held that; "5. It is well-settled proposition of law that every judgment pronounced by this Court is presumed to be considered solemn, and final decision on all points arising out of the case. If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law, a review petition will not be competent. It is also settled principle of law that a "review petition" not competent where there is neither new and important fact nor any error apparent on the face of record. Such error may be error of question of law or fact but the condition precedent is that it must be self- evident floating on the surface and not requiring elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination."
Recently, this Court in the case of "Commissioner Inland Revenue Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax House, Karachi and another v. Messrs MSC Switzerland Geneva and others" (authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in which I was one of the member of the Bench) has held as under:- "10. ....Review by its nature is neither commensurate to a right of appeal or opportunity of rehearing merely on _the groundihat one party or the other. conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the court, nor can a judgment or order he reviewed merely because a different view could have been taken.
'Nowadays, it has become almost a fashion and/or custom to file review applications fleetingly and unthinkingly in routine on the basis of certificates issued by the advocates with a plain replica of the grounds urged in the main petition or appeal without any accurate allusion to any error in the judgment or order which warrants or merits reversal. We, in all fairness, denounce this fashion or practice which wastes the precious time of the Court with the exception in the clearest form, that while adverting to a provision or construction of any law and/or Constitution, some errors are apparent on the face of the record which caused substantial injury which requires some remedial measures to advance the cause of justice for which not only the specific ground(s) should be mentioned in the certificate of the advocate, but it should be pinpointed also in the review petition rather than mentioning sweeping and stereotypical grounds having no significance or nexus with the case."
In the case supra, the court discussed in detail the legal position pertaining to the exercise of review jurisdiction and analyzed various international judgments, one of which herein below; "16. Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 119). The gist of this judgment is that under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 three grounds for review are provided: (1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of, or could not be produced by, the party seeking review at the time when the decree was passed or order made; (2) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (3) or any other sufficient reason. The third ground has been interpreted by the courts to be read ejusdem generis in the context of two preceding grounds. It is notable that the ground, "error apparent on the face of the record", is common for review in both civil and criminal proceedings. The expression, "error apparent on the face of the record", as observed by Hamoodur Rehman, J. in Anwar Husain v. Province of East Pakistan, cannot be defined with precision or exhaustiveness, and there would always remain an element of indefiniteness' inherent in its very nature. It is to be determined in each case on the basis of its own peculiar facts. Whenever Judges of these courts are pointed out, in review jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or law, something in their judgment or order to be in conflict With the Constitution or any law of the land, it becomes their duty to unhesitatingly correct that error. Duty of the Judges of the apex Court of the country is more thoughtful and profound in this regard, as there is no other court which can correct their error, and the principles of law enunciated in their judgments are, under Article 189 of the Constitution, binding on all other courts in the country."
5. Refefence May also be made to the case of neighboring jurisdiction reported as State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another wherein it was held that; "The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, Scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order XL VII, Rule 1, CP.C."
Perusal of the afore-cited cases indicates that an error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any in-depth process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Thus an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
Further ahead in the ibid judgment, it was held that: "Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. It is settled law that power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. This has been affirmed by this court in a number. of cases such as Pakistan International Airlines Karachi v. Inayat Rasool (2004 SCMR 1737); Nook Hassan Awan v.. Muhammad Ashraf (2001 SCMR 367); Kalsoom Malik and others v.
Assistant Commissioner and others. (1996 SCMR 710) and Abdul Majeed and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1980 SCMR 504). Similarly, examination of the foreign jurisdiction also affirms the same view such as in the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v.
Assam SEB wherein it has been held that; "Scope of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot he permitted to re-agitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided."
Hence, if an argument has been advanced by, the party in the appellate forum then same cannot be argued at the review stage. in the case at hand, all the contentions made by the petitioner before us in the review were also advanced before this court so also courts below, which is not permitted at the review stage."
Similarly, in the case of Mehmood Hussain Lark and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others reported as 2010 SCMR 1036, it was observed as under: "We are of the view that before an error can be a ground of review, it is necessary, that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear, that no Court could. permit such an error to remain on record. Incorrectness of a conclusion arrived at after a conscious perusal of record and in-depth examination of evidence cannot be made a ground for review because to permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court jurisdiction of re-hearing appeals against its own judgment."
Learned counsel for petitioner was heard at substantial length but he has not been able to bring his case within the contours of review jurisdiction by pointing out any error floating on the surface of record.
13. In view of the foregoing, the instant review petition, being devoid of merits,. is hereby dismissed.