Fayaz Ahmed Malik @ Fiyaz Ahmed & Anr. vs The U.T of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

The applicant has filed the present Review Application seeking the following reliefs: -

The present Review Application has been preferred by the applicant seeking review/recall of the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 8084/2021, whereby the Transfer Application filed by the applicant was dismissed. The original proceedings arose out of SWP No. 1964/2015, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to this Tribunal.

The brief factual background necessary for deciding the present Review Application is that the applicant had participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Constable in IRP 16– 20 Battalions in the year 2009. His name figured at Serial No. 12 in the select list under the RBA category for District Rajouri pursuant to PHQ Order No. 2804 of 2009 dated 30.07.2009. However, during completion of the pre-recruitment formalities, it came to light that the applicant was involved in FIR No. 12/2004 registered at Police Station Darhal under Sections 307, 341, 333 and 323 RPC.

The applicant was subsequently acquitted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri vide judgment dated 30.03.2013. His claim for appointment was nevertheless rejected by the respondents. The matter was considered by a Designated Committee, which found the applicant unsuitable for appointment in the Police Department having regard to his antecedents. His claim was rejected by Order No. 14 of 2014 dated 01.01.2014 and thereafter again by Order No. 664 of 2015 dated 13.03.2015.

The aforesaid orders ultimately became the subject matter of T.A. No. 8084/2021. After hearing the parties and considering the pleadings and material available on record, this Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application by its detailed order dated 07.07.2025. The Tribunal specifically considered the effect of the applicant’s selection, the criminal proceedings and subsequent acquittal, the assessment of his suitability by the Designated Committee, and the nature of appointment to a disciplined force.

In the present Review Application, the applicant seeks reopening of the aforesaid decision primarily on the ground that certain relevant circumstances were not appropriately considered. It has been pleaded that subsequent to his acquittal, the applicant was engaged by the Police Department as a Special Police Officer (SPO) vide Order No. 508 of 2017 dated 11.08.2017 and has continued to discharge duties in the Police establishment. According to him, such engagement, having been made after verification of his antecedents, demonstrates that he could not simultaneously be treated as a person of dubious character or unsuitable for appointment as Constable.

The applicant has further sought to raise the plea that his date of birth is 15.04.1988 and, therefore, he was a juvenile at the time of registration of the FIR in March 2004. It is contended that this aspect, coupled with his eventual acquittal and subsequent engagement as an SPO, constitutes sufficient ground for recalling the judgment dated 07.07.2025 and reconsidering his claim for appointment.

The respondents have opposed the Review Application. Their principal objection is that the applicant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. According to the respondents, all material issues concerning the applicant's selection, criminal antecedents, acquittal and suitability for appointment had already been examined while deciding the Transfer Application. The present proceedings, according to them, are an attempt to obtain rehearing of the original matter in the guise of review.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the Review Application, the objections filed by the respondents and, importantly, the judgment dated 07.07.2025 sought to be reviewed.

The short question arising for consideration is whether the applicant has demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally permissible ground warranting exercise of the limited power of review.

The jurisdiction of review is fundamentally different from appellate jurisdiction. A review proceeding does not permit the Court or Tribunal to rehear the matter merely because one of the parties believes that another conclusion was possible. An error which has to be established by a process of reasoning, reconsideration of evidence or re-appreciation of competing submissions cannot ordinarily be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be employed as an appeal in disguise.

Tested on the aforesaid parameters, we find no ground to review the order dated 07.07.2025. A perusal thereof shows that the principal controversy was specifically noticed and adjudicated. This Tribunal recorded that the applicant's inclusion in the select list did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that appointment was subject to verification of character, antecedents and suitability. It further took note of the fact that the Designated Committee, after examination of the record, had found the applicant unsuitable for appointment to the Police force.

The effect of the applicant's acquittal was also expressly considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The Tribunal recorded that though the applicant had been acquitted, the charges involved were serious and the Designated Committee had independently examined his suitability for appointment in the Police Department. Therefore, the contention that the criminal proceedings or the acquittal were altogether overlooked cannot be accepted.

Much emphasis has now been placed upon the applicant's subsequent engagement as an SPO and his continuation in that capacity. However, this circumstance does not disclose an error apparent in the judgment under review. Engagement as an SPO at a subsequent point of time and the applicant's claim for appointment as a regularly selected Constable pursuant to the selection process of 2009 operate in their respective factual and legal contexts. Whether such subsequent engagement ought to have been accorded greater weight while examining the original claim would, at best, require a fresh evaluation of the merits. Such an exercise would amount to rehearing the Transfer Application, which is beyond the permissible limits of review jurisdiction.

The plea relating to the applicant's age at the time of registration of the FIR also does not disclose any self-evident error in the judgment dated 07.07.2025. The present review jurisdiction cannot be converted into an opportunity to introduce a new line of argument and thereafter seek a fresh adjudication of the original dispute. If determination of a ground requires examination of additional facts, documents and legal consequences, the same by its very nature cannot ordinarily constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

It is also significant that the original judgment did not rest solely upon the existence of the criminal case. The Tribunal considered the entire matter, including the applicant's selection, the conditions attached thereto, the decision of the Designated Committee regarding suitability, the rejection orders and the lapse of considerable time. The Tribunal further recorded that more than eleven years had elapsed since issuance of the select list and that the applicant had never held the post in question.

The judgment sought to be reviewed further returned a categorical finding that the rejection orders were based upon relevant material and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate infringement of any constitutional or statutory right. On that basis, the relief claimed in the Transfer Application was found untenable and the matter was dismissed.

In substance, the grounds urged in the present Review Application require this Tribunal to reassess the facts, reconsider the effect of the applicant's acquittal, give fresh weight to his subsequent engagement as an SPO, reconsider his suitability for police service and arrive at a conclusion different from the one recorded in the judgment dated 07.07.2025. Such an exercise would plainly amount to sitting in appeal over our earlier judgment.

Review is not intended to provide a second round of adjudication on merits. Unless there is a patent mistake which is manifest from the record itself, the finality attached to a judicial determination cannot be disturbed merely because a party seeks reconsideration on additional or differently formulated grounds. No such patent or self-evident error has been demonstrated in the present case.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the applicant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025. The grounds raised essentially seek rehearing and re-appreciation of the controversy already adjudicated in T.A. No. 8084/2021, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review.

Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed, being devoid of merit. The judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed in T.A. No. 8084/2021 shall remain undisturbed.

No order as to costs.