Point of law : A Court cannot rehear or correct erroneous judgment by way of a review. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments are insufficient for exercising.

ORDER :

1. Instant review petition has been filed by Nisar Ahmad Malik, who was impleaded as respondent No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as the review petitioner) to the writ petition bearing SWP No.1794/2011. By virtue of this review petition, judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2018, passed by the Writ Court is sought to be reviewed.

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are that the one Suhail ur Rehman (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the appointment order of review petitioner who had been appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) in terms of order dated 21st June, 2011, issued by Chief Education Officer, Anantnag. The writ petition came to be allowed by the Writ Court in terms of the judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2018 and the appointment of review petitioner was quashed.

3. It seems that the review petitioner challenged the judgment and order of the Writ Court before the Division Bench by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 22.10.2018 with liberty to the review petitioner to approach the Writ Court with a review petition. It is in these circumstances that the instant review petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The writ record suggests that an advertisement notice was issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Vailoo, whereby applications were invited from eligible unemployed youth having minimum qualification of 10+2 or above from the habitations of Peer Mohalla and Nai Basti for engagement of two ReTs in the newly established primary schools. The applications along with requisite testimonials were to reach the office of the Zonal Education Officer within seven days after the publication of advertisement notice in the newspaper. The advertisement notice was published in the newspaper on 6th of December, 2009.

5. The case of the writ petition before the Writ Court was that the review petitioner, who had been selected pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, was not a graduate degree as on date of submission of his application form and, as such, he could not have been preferred over and above the writ petitioner who was holding the degree of graduation at the relevant time.

6. The contention of the review petitioner before the Writ Court was that even though he had not qualified the paper of Environmental Studies course at the time when he submitted his application yet he had passed all other compulsory papers of graduation at the relevant time. It was further contention of the review petitioner that once the paper relating to Environmental Studies was passed by the review petitioner after the cut-off date, his degree of graduation has to be reckoned from the date of declaration of result of 3rd year class, meaning thereby that his degree is to be reckoned from the date he had passed the other compulsory papers. This contention of the review petitioner has been rejected by the Writ Court by holding that without passing the paper of Environmental Studies the review petitioner cannot be shown to have obtained the degree of B. A. meaning thereby that he was not eligible for the post when he applied for it in view of the relevant guidelines.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the review petitioner that eligibility for the post of ReT is 10+2 and not graduation and, as such, the Writ Court was not justified in holding that the review petitioner was not eligible at the time of submitting his application as, admittedly, he had passed 10+2 examination prior to the said date.

8. It has been next contended that the Writ Court did not appreciate the fact that once the review petitioner had passed the paper of Environmental Studies, his degree of graduation has to be reckoned from the date of declaration of his result in respect of other compulsory papers.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the Writ Court.

10. Before proceeding to conside