Page | 1 RP 86/2023 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 86/2023 in LPA 87/2023 Reserved on : 19.09.2025 Pronounced on : 09.10.2025 Sabiya Rashid and Others …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shahid Habib, Advocate v. UT of JK and Others ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1. By the medium of the instant review petition, the review petitioners are seeking review of the judgment/order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 87/2023, titled „University of Kashmir and Others vs. Sabiya Rashid and Others‟. 2. The applicants/review petitioners are seeking review of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023, on the grounds that there are apparent errors on the face of record which require to be rectified. The review petitioners are primarily referring to the observation of this Court made in the judgment under review at Paragraph No. 61, which for facility of reference is reproduced herein: “61. ….The present case deals with a proposal of regularizing services of contractual appointees by creating supernumerary posts which would entail additional expenses and these supernumerary posts are not yet born on the cadre, and as such, we are of the view that the said decision in Dr. Page | 2 RP 86/2023 Asif Ahmad Sheikh’s case (supra) will not be applicable in the present case…” 3. The review petitioners while referring to the aforesaid observation of this Court made in the judgment under review, are projecting that this Court has landed in error in holding that the ratio, laid down by this Court in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh’s case (supra), is not applicable to the case of the review petitioners, in that, the financial concurrence was not required to be obtained from the finance department in the case of review petitioners as well and by holding otherwise, the court has landed in error which needs to be reviewed. 4. The review petitioners, besides the above-stated/projected error are also referring to the number of the LPA in memo of parties having wrongly been reflected as LPA No. 853/2023 instead of LPA No. 87/2023 to again project that this Court has completely overlooked/glossed over the record. 5. Per contra, respondents, upon notice have filed their objections to the review petition, projecting inter alia, that the judgment under review does not call for any revisiting as there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of record that calls for such revisitation. 6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment under review as also the allied material available. 7. Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners submits that this Court while passing the judgment under review has proceeded on wrong assumptions against the clear stand of the University, thereby, committing an error, apparent on the face of record which requires to be corrected by allowing the instant review petition. Page | 3 RP 86/2023 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment under review is quite reasoned and does not call for any review as there is no error, whatsoever on the face of record, which may warrant a revisitation. 9. Precisely, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners seeks review of the judgment dated 12.10.2023, on the sole premise that this Court, while passing the judgment under review has misinterpreted the resolution of the University dated 09.10.2018, whereby 80 supernumerary posts of helpers were resolved to be created and the funds of Rs. 261.5/- lacs were resolved to be projected at R.E. 2018-19 stage with the Finance Department (J&K Govt.). The learned senior counsel believes that the University, by such resolution, had not sought financial concurrence from the Government, as was the situation in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh’s case (supra), and the Court by taking the resolution in question in such direction has committed an error which impacted the outcome of the LPA. 10. The resolution dated 09.10.2018 of the respondent University, in the first instance, is taken note of herein: “ITEM NO: 11 To consider the following:- i. Creation of 80 supernumerary positions of Helpers in the SL Level of ₹14800-47100 (SL1) and ii. Allocation of funds on account of monthly salary of the persons to be adjusted as Helpers against the aforementioned positions as under: Page | 4 RP 86/2023 Financial Year Approx. financial implications 2018-19 (for B.E) 2019-20 (for R.E) ₹76.70 (for five months) ₹184.08 Considered the following: i. Creation of 80 supernumerary positions of Helpers in the SL Level of ₹14800-47100 (SL1) and ii. Allocation of funds on account of monthly salary of the persons to be adjusted as Helpers against the aforementioned positions as under: Financial Year Approx. financial implications 2018-19 (for B.E) 2019-20 (for R.E) ₹76.70 (for five months) ₹184.08 Resolved: That the creation of 80 supernumerary positions of Helpers in the SL ₹14800-47100 be endorsed for adoption and funds of ₹ 261.5 lacs be projected at R.E 2018-19 Stage with the Finance Department (J&K Government).” 11. This Court does not find the possibility of any other interpretation to the resolution in question than the one taken by this Court in terms of the judgment under review. The University, in unambiguous terms, is seeking to project the cause of budgetary support in respect of the supernumerary posts with the Finance Department and we believe that any attempt aimed at expanding the scope of interpretation of the said resolution would be, nonetheless, an exercise in futility. Page | 5 RP 86/2023 12. Having considered the factual matrix, we now segue to the legal principles governing the subject. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms whereof the present application/review petition has been filed is desirable to be taken note of herein: “ORDER XLVII 1. Application for review of judgment.---(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--- a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Page | 6 RP 86/2023 Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.” 13. The above extracted provision of law would emphatically make it clear that the exercise of review is required to be made when the court is convinced that there is an apparent error on the face of record. However, in the instant case, we are not persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that there exists an error apparent on the face of record that warrants revisiting/reviewing the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023. Furthermore, we are conscious of the fact that this court, under its review jurisdiction, has not to discuss the merits of the case afresh which the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners probably wants us to do. The review petition cannot be allowed to be pursued as an appeal in disguise. 14. The Apex court in its latest pronouncement rendered in case titled, ‘Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna‟, reported as 2025 INSC 1080, has laid down the same principle. Paragraph No. 19 of the said judgment, being relevant, is taken note of as under: “19. The impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties. The review order records a few findings extending far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition. The order impugned has exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a court.” 15. We may hasten to add that Mr. Asif Maqbool, Assisting Counsel to learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, produced a copy of communication dated 27.05.2024 which reflects that the Page | 7 RP 86/2023 respondent-University has already acted upon the directives of this Court passed in LPA No. 87/2023 vide judgment and order dated 12.10.2023, thereby, shrinking the scope even further. 16. For all what has been said hereinbefore, the instant review petition is found to be without merit, therefore, dismissed. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 09.10.2025 “Misba ”  Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes/No.  Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes/No