Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the case or substitute a new view.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan CJ:

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner in terms of Rule 51 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2014 passed in SWP No. 593/2012, MP No. 921/2012 titled Tarsem Lal Vs. Union of India and others.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor vide order No. 1713/Rectt/16/E1B2 dated 03.08.2004 in Military Engineering Service (MES) by respondent No. 3 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200-(2550) plus usual allowance. He was on probation for a period of two years. His services were governed by the Civil Defence Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 [“Rules of 1965”]. The respondents terminated the petitioner’s services vide order dated 31.10.2009 in reference to Explanation at Srl (viii) (a) Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 967/JK/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, questioning the order of termination dated 31.10.2009 on the ground that Sub Rule (VIII) (a) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965 was not applicable to him because he had already completed the maximum period of the probation and acquired the status of a permanent employee in the department of respondents and that the order of the termination was stigmatic in nature. The protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India has not been provided to him as the petitioner being less educated not well versed with language. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application by virtue of order dated 22.09.2011.

5. Aggrieved of the Tribunal order, petitioner filed SWP No. 593/2012. The Division Bench relying upon the decisions reported in (1996) 11 SCC 605 titled Delhi Administration Versus Sushil Kumar , (2010) 14 SCC 103 titled Daya Shanker Yadav Versus Union of India and others and (2008) 3 SCC 222 State of Harayana Vs Dinesh Kumar and (2008) 11 SCC 314 case titled Union of India Vs Bipad Bhanjan Gayan and by applying the ratio of these judgments, has dismissed the writ petition vide judgement/order dated 10.12.2014.

6. Now review is being sought by the petitioner in the instant petition. In support of the review petition, it is stated by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court has erred in passing the judgement under review as petitioner has completed his probation period and acquired the status of permanent employee as such his services are deemed to have been confirmed on the post, therefore, he is entitled to protection in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but, this fact of the matter has not been considered by this Court while disposing of the petition. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner neither at any point of time has suppressed any material information from the respondents while accepting the appointment as Mazdoor in MES nor have the respondents at any point of time asked for the same. The learned counsel has also submitted that the termination order is stigmatic in nature which requires procedure to be followed under Rule 14 of Rules of 1965.

7. In rebuttal to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was on probation as laid down in the recruitment rules and during the probation period he was governed by the Rules of 1965. It is further contended that the verification report received by the respondent No.3 from the SSP, District Police Headquarters, Jammu, vide letter dated 21.01.2005 reveals that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case/ FIR No.281/200 under Section 307/326/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act which was registered at Police Station, Domana prior to his appointment in the MES, but the petitioner managed to secure a fake character certificate dated 10^th August. 2004 from SDPO, Akhnoor so as to get himself appointed in the MES. A regular inquiry was c