The scope of review is limited to considering only an error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be used as a tool for changing the opinion/view of the court, and it is essential that any error must be prima facie visible and not require any detailed examination.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Petitioner seeks recall/review of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this court in Contempt Petition being CPLPA No.36/2018 titled ‘Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Anshul Garg, Deputy Commissioner, Doda’ whereby the contempt petition filed by the petitioner has been closed.

2. The review has been filed inter alia on the following grounds :

i. that the court has dropped the contempt proceedings only on the ground that petitioner has not challenged the appointment orders, which appointment orders have allegedly been quashed by the court vide order dated 28.08.2018 in SWP No.311/2007;

ii. since the authorities, after the selection file was lost, had to collect the testimonials of all the eligible candidates afresh, then how come instead of collecting the testimonials of 38 candidates afresh, the authorities had prepared the merit wise list of 53 candidates;

iii. that the merit list placed on record along with compliance report is without any approval of the authorities;

iv. the authorities have misled the court by misrepresenting the facts and circumstances of the case;

v. that as per the judgment, the Deputy Commissioner, Doda has redrawn the merit list while only one appointment order has been issued and the case of the petitioner has been rejected when the total number of posts were 45 and the petitioner was at Sl. No.38 in the same merit list. So on this ground alone, the review may be taken of the order dated 11.12.2023; and

vi. That the order dated 11.12.2023 is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the Executive Engineer has not mentioned the source of the merit list prepared as the Executive Engineer has not mentioned that how he managed to collect the data of 53 candidates when only 38 had submitted their testimonials for reframing of the merit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that in the instant review petition, the review petitioner has touched the merits of the case, which in a review petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the review petition have already been considered and decided with findings returned thereon by the Court. If the review petitioner was aggrieved of the said findings, he ought to have availed the remedy under law for challenging the judgment in reference in appropriate Court. In fact, the instant review petition on grounds enumerated therein appears to be an appeal in disguise. The grounds taken by the review petitioner are either that the findings recorded by the Court are not legally tenable, or that the same are perverse, or that the same are unacceptable. A judgment may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, legally untenable, etc. but nevertheless remains a valid judgment in the eyes of law against which the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal against the said judgment. Such grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a review.

5. A review cannot also be used as a tool for changing the opinion/ view of the Court giving/rendering the judgment/order. In a review petition, it is only an error which is apparent on the face of the record that can be considered and gone into by the Court. It is not available to the Court, dealing with review petition, to re-appreciate the facts and circumstances de-novo and fetch a different conclusion even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of facts and circumstances of a given case and after hearing the rival parties, cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

6. So far as the grievance of the review petitioner on merits of the case is concerned, virtually the review petitioner seeks the same relief which he had sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negated.

7. Once such a prayer has been refused, no review petition would lie which would