HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 Satya Devi …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate. vs State of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 07.07.2025 ORAL 1. The petitioner, in the instant petition, seeks review of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2010 (for short „the order‟), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner being SWP No. 763/2009 came to be disposed of as under:- “For the above stated reasons this petition is allowed in the following manner: a) By issuance of writ of certiorari, Government Order No. 583-GAD of 2009 dated 24.04.2009 is quashed. b) By issuance of writ of Mandamus, respondents are directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner within a period of two months from today by granting relaxation in upper age limit. Petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to her within aforesaid period. 2. The petitioner has urged the following grounds in the instant review petition while maintaining the same:- (I) Because the petitioner completed all the requisite formalities as prescribed well within the time and as such her case stand squarely covered within the four corners of provision of SRO 43 of 1994, as such there is no justification on part of the respondents in delaying the case of the petitioner for her appointment more-so when the power to relax the upper age limit, request whereof stood already made by the concerned Serial No. 20 2 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 Administrative Department to he General Administrative Department. Therefore, the petitioner is required to be treated in service from the date when she applied under SRO 43 and all the monetary and other benefits are required to be released from the date she applied for appointment under SRO 43. (II) Because in the given set of circumstances, the petitioner otherwise cannot be discriminated merely because the respondents for the best reasons known to them have caused delay in recommending the case of the petitioner and further appointment of the petitioner. (III) Because the respondents cannot be said to be legally justified in delaying the case of the petitioner without any rhyme or reason and making the petitioner who is a widow and has run from pillar to post seeking the benefit of provision of SRO 43. It is submitted that petitioner being appointee of 2011 has been told by the respondents that in view of the SRO 400 dated 24-12- 2009, whereby Art. 167, 240-G (g) , 249-A, 249-M (B) have been re- casted with the effect that the services of the petitioner would be governed under the new SRO and all such appointees appointed on or after 01-01-2010 shall be governed by " New Pension Scheme". Therefore, action on part of the respondents is liable to be struck down. (IV) Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has already dealt with the question regarding applicability of amended rules governing the selection. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Y. V. Rangaia & Ors Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported 1983 (3) SCC pg 284 held that the vacancies occurring before the amendment of rules will be governed by the old un-amended rules and not the amended rules. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under : “The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the Old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the State wise basis and therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filing the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” (V) Because the above made factual and legal submissions make it abundantly clear that the impugned action on part of the respondents is a clear example of arbitrariness, colourable exercise of administrative powers as also total non application of mind, as such, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed on this score also. (VI) Because the impugned action and inaction on the part of official respondents apart from being unjustified, unreasonable and arbitrary, is also in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the 3 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 Constitution of India and is perverse and bad in the eyes of law, violating the basic principle of natural justice. 3. Record of the proceedings would reveal that the respondents despite having entered appearance and seeking time to file response to the review petition, did not chose to file any response to the review petition, as a consequence whereof, in terms of order dated 16.05.2025, the right of the respondents to file reply came to be closed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Before adverting to the case set up in the instant petition seeking review of the order, it is significant to refer hereunder to the ambit and scope of the doctrine of review. 5. It is settled position of law that once a judgment is pronounced or an order is made, the Court becomes functus officio, i.e. ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or the order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and can be invoked by the parties dissatisfied thereof on certain grounds only. It is also settled position of law that every Court can correct an inadvertent or unintentional error, which may have crept in the judgment or order either due to procedural defect, mathematical and clerical error or by misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the proceedings. 4 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 6. The Apex Court in case titled as “Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawar, reported in 2020 Online SC 896”, has noticed and held as under:- “33. In the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612, this Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be “mistake or error apparent on the face of record”. In para 22 to 35 it is observed and held as under: “22. 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 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. . . . 26. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius (supra) this Court interpreted the provisions contained in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which are analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 and observed: “32. … Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order 47 Rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely, (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant‟s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) For any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words any other sufficient reason must mean a reason sufficient on grounds, least analogous to those specified in the rule. 27. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (supra) it was held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereof an erroneous decision can be corrected. 5 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 28. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (Supra) it was held as under: (SCC p. 716) “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be „reheard and corrected‟. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 34. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.” 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, record would reveal that the petitioner herein, sought from the respondents, appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of her husband in harness on 02.01.2003 in terms of provisions of SRO 43 of 1994 in the year 2003 itself, whereupon her case came to be recommended by the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Kathua to the Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, 6 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 Kathua on 29.04.2003, however, no decision thereon was taken by the respondents, which compelled the petitioner to file SWP No. 51/2009 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 15.01.2009 with direction to the respondents to take final decision about the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner, consequent to which order, in terms of communication dated 24.04.2009, case of the petitioner came to be rejected, aggrieved whereof, the petitioner filed SWP No. 763/2009, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.07.2010 i.e. the order under review. 8. It is significant to mention here that against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2010, the respondents therein preferred LPASW No. 102/2010 before the Division Bench, which came to be disposed of on 20.09.2010 and upheld the order except to the extent of imposition of costs of Rs. 10,000/-. After the disposal of the LPA (Supra), the respondents vide Govt. Order dated 11.02.2011 ordered the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds against Class- IV post, however, feeling dissatisfied thereof, the petitioner yet again filed SWP No. 1881/2012 seeking therein, inter alia, a relief that the petitioner be treated to have been appointed on the date, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds instead of 2011 under the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, besides praying a direction upon the respondents for bringing the petitioner under the New Pension Scheme Rules. The said petition, however, came to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 05.02.2016, while permitting the petitioner to file review petition against the order dated 7 RP No. 157/2021 in SWP No. 763/2009 16.07.2010, whereupon the petitioner has maintained the instant review petition, essentially seeking the relief which the petitioner had sought in SWP No. 1881/2012 (Supra) qua retrospective effect to her appointment. 9. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 16.07.2010 stands upheld by the Division Bench and the said order of the Division Bench has assumed finality and in essence the order of the Writ Court under reference dated 16.07.2010 got merged into the said Division Bench order. Thus, in law, the petitioner herein cannot seek review of the order dated 16.07.2010 in presence of the order of the Division Bench dated 20.09.2010 on any grounds whatsoever including those urged in the instant petition. 10. Viewed thus, the instant review petition is found to be grossly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 07.07.2025 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sahil Padha 2025.07.15 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document