IMPORTANT POINT
A review of a judgment is permissible only on specific grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence, and cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new claims.

JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. In the instant petition, review of the judgement dated 21.10.2021, passed by this Court in SWP No. 1405/2011 titled Mehraj-ud-Din Najar v. S.K. University of Agriculture Science and Technology and others, is sought by the Review Petitioner (Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) on the following grounds:

(i) Because the Order sought to be reviewed, it is stated that Mr. Azhar-ul Amin, Advocate, representing the review petitioner, due to indisposed state of health could not attend the hearing on the date fixed in the matter viz. 09.09.2021 and the review petitioner was unrepresented at the hearing of the matter and the judgement rendered quashing the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (review petitioner) without hearing the review petitioner. Resultantly the material of vital bearing and decisive importance has not formed the part of consideration of this Court while rendering the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.2021, afflicting thereby the impugned judgement and order with error apparent on the face of the judgement within the meaning of contemplation of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 65 of the High Court Rules, rendering in sequel thereto the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.2021 liable to be reviewed to correct the error apparent as well as the resultant miscarriage of justice.

(ii) Because the order sought to be reviewed it is humbly submitted, has failed to appreciate the grounds urged by the review petitioner vis-a-vis the facts, as available from the records, as such, is liable to be reviewed for the error apparent on the face of record.

(iii) Because the order sought to be reviewed could not bring the material discovered during the pendency of the writ petition of clinching effect though, in that, the said material comprising official record maintained by the Respondent-University in the ordinary course of official business, furnished the clinching evidence of the fact that the stand of the review petitioner in counter affidavit that application in the prescribed form was submitted well in time but unfortunately mislaid/misplaced is factually correct and it was under the directions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, issued/passed in exercise of powers as by law vested under Clause 6(b) of the University Statutes, 1983 that the application of the review petitioner submitted on plain paper was entertained and review petitioner allowed to appear in the interview test.

(iv) Because the order sought to be reviewed fails to consider the above aspect of the matter inasmuch as the review petitioner has suffered for negligence, intentional or otherwise, of his counsel in all bona fides and not because of any intended omission on the part of the review petitioner.

(v) Because the order sought to be reviewed that the requirements of the job of Workshop Assistant was/is in the Agricultural Engineering Division of the Respondent-University, the qualification possessed by the review petitioner, in the estimation of the experts in the field fully answered the imperatives of the qualification prescribed as a matter of eligibility for appointment to the post of Workshop Assistant in the Agricultural Engineering Division in the Respondent-University and it is because of above the review petitioner was appointed against the advertised post of Workshop Assistant.

(vi) Because the order sought to be reviewed in view of the law declared on the subject by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Nagaraj Case reported in 1993 (Supp.) 4 SCC 595, paragraphs 18 and 19 at page 618-619 and paragraphs 89 and 90 at page 605 in Netaji Cricket Club Case reported in AIR 2005 SC 592, is also liable to be reviewed and the application seeking review deserves to be accepted/allowed ex debito justitiae.

2. Before adverting to the grounds detailed out hereinabove, it would be appropriate to give a brief background of the case hereunder:-

3. Respondent No. 1 herei