A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a review.

JUDGEMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

2. A writ petition [WP(C) no.988/2021] filed by Raheela Nazir and others (writ petitioners) was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 27th October 2022, directing respondents therein to complete the process of regularization of the services of writ petitioners against the posts on which they have been appointed with effect from the date they have successfully completed their two years’ contractual service with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months.

3. Against the Writ Court judgment dated 27th October 2022, the appellants – review petitioners herein, directed a Letters Patent Appeal [LPA no.55/2023]. This Court upon considering the case set up by appellants, hearing learned counsel for parties and after going through the impugned judgement, found that Writ Court judgement did not call for any interference and resultantly dismissed the appeal vide judgement dated 10th April 2023.

4. In the instant motion, appellants/review petitioners pray for review of judgement dated 10th April 2023.

5. It is a submission of learned counsel for review petitioners that this Court erred in passing the judgement under review as the posts in question were advertised purely on contractual basis to implement Three-year Action Plan 2020 and by no means attained the status of recruitment and the service rules enforceable has not been considered by this Court. He also contends that three year action plan was approved by the Chairman of the Governing Body (Chief Secretary) of appellant-Institute with a stipulation that the institute shall not create any liability and all extra expenditure shall be met out of proposed saving plan and that the action plan 2030 was implemented under the said policy on the background that the Institute shall generate funds from the earnings by way of implementation of various schemes vis-à-vis Seed Capital Fund Scheme, Youth Startup Loan Scheme and NMDFC Term Loan Scheme, but all the schemes were subsequently implemented by other agencies and as on date, appellant/review petitioner-Institute is not implementing any of the aforesaid schemes on the basis whereof respondents/writ-petitioners were recruited. It is also next contended by learned counsel for review petitioners that closure of these schemes has drastically affected the earnings of the Institute and appellants are facing severe financial scarcity by way of reduced earnings and it is difficult for the Institute to bear the salaries of not only the petitioners, but also the employees working on regular cadre of appellant-Institute. All the appointments in the Institute are made on contract basis as per the decision of the Sub-Committee meeting of Governing Body held on 18th December 2007. It is also contended by counsel for review petitioners that the Government vide Order no.1076-JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 27th November 2020 constituted a committee to look into the nature and quantum of illegalities/irregularities pointed out in special audit report of J&K Entrepreneurship Development Institute (JKEDI) 2020 and that the committee observed that Vision 2020 is only an Action Plan and by no means whatsoever attains the status of recruitment and service rule. He also asserts that no regularization process can be conducted by appellant-Institute without the assistance of an Restructuring Committee who shall submit its report to General Administration Department for further necessary action, which has been appointed in the instant case by the Government vide Government Order no.462-JK(GAD) of 2022 dated 21st April 2022.

6. Meticulous examination of petition on hand, supplicating review of judgement dated 27th October 2022, makes it known that none of the grounds adumbrated therein can, strictly speaking, be said to fall within ambit and scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review petition on hand, i