The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review, emphasizing that the power of review is exercised only when an error apparent on the face of the record is found.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. By medium of the instant review petition, the review petitioner as being the appellant in LPASW No.189/2016 is seeking review of judgment passed on 31.12.2018 in LPASW No. 189/2016, on the grounds detailed out as under;

"(i) That the judgment dated 31.12.2018 is required to be reviewed on the ground that prior to the order dated 10.06.2010 passed by respondent no.1 there were circulars issued by Education Department whereby the life of select panel was kept for one year and accordingly immediately after termination of the respondent No.6, the candidature of the petitioner herein was recommended by respondents No.3 and 4 well within time i.e. in the month of February, 2010 for approval of respondent No.2 which was accorded on 14.06.2010, but due to the interim order passed by Hon’ble Court in SWP No. 1150/2010, the engagement order could not be issued in favour of the review petitioner herein and it was only when the aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31.10.2011 and enquiry was conducted, the engagement order was issued on 03.02.2012 in favour of the review petitioner herein by respondent No.4. The observation of this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated 31.12.2018 that the life of panel had already expired is contrary to record and that in the facts of the case the delay in issuing the engagement order was only on account of interim orders passed by this Hon’ble court in the aforesaid writ petition.

ii) That the order/judgment is required to be reviewed on the ground that if the aforesaid post of RET is re-advertised, then in any case, the respondent No.5 who has been permitted by the Hon’ble Singe Judge to be allowed to participate in the selection process alongwith the petitioner herein cannot be in a position to apply as he has already crossed his upper age limit. The respondent No.6 who did not press the aforesaid petitions in view of his appointment as Asstt. Engineer, as such, was not allowed by the Hon’ble Single Bench to participate in the fresh selection process, the net result of re-advertising the aforesaid post will definitely be a futile exercise because alongwith the petitioner herein there will be many more new candidates available for applying except the private respondent.

iii) That the order/judgment dated 31.12.2018 is further sought to be reviewed on the ground that the order/judgment dated 06.12.2016 is highly prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner herein who was also pursuing his higher studies as an engineering student and left the same in between and joined as RET on 03.02.2012 and remained serving as such upto April, 2012 when the petitioner herein was not allowed to mark his attendance in view of the interim directions passed in SWP No. 502/2012.

iv) That the order/judgment is further sought to be reviewed on the ground that the Circular dated 01.11.2009 issued by Director School Education, Kashmir, which prescribes one year life for the panel was kept in abeyance by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.04.2010 i.e. after the period when the name of the petitioner herein was recommended for his engagement as RET, so any order/circular issued in this regard can have only prospective effect but not retrospective effect, but in the instant case, when the name of the petitioner herein was recommended for his engagement as RET there was no circular other than circular dated 01.11.2009 which prescribes the life of panel for one year, but this Hon’ble Court without considering this aspect of the matter, dismissed the appeal by observing that the petitioner herein was engaged during the currency of circular dated 10.06.2010 when the fact remains that the petitioner herein was engaged must before issuance of circular dated 10.06.2010 which is not applicable in the case of petitioner herein.

v) That the order/judgment dated 31.12.2018 is further sought to be reviewed on the ground that the petitioner herein’s engagement is under a Scheme and is not holding a civil post and und