Mst. Sultan Zarina and others Vs Govt of KP and others

A

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGIr COURT'

BAI\INU BENCH

(Judicial DePartment)

Review Petition No.07-Bl2025'

Mst. Sultan Zarina and others

Versus

Govt. of K.P and others

JUDGMENT

For petitioners: Mr. Shakir Ullatr Khan, Advocate' For respondents: Nemo (motion case).

Date of hearing: 01.8.2025.

**rf

M(IHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI. l.- Through the instant petition, filed under Section I 14 read with Order XLV[, /0 Rule I C.P.C , the petitioners seek review of the judgment, dated 16.06.2025, passed in C.R. No'l 15- Bl2O25, whereby their civil revision petition was dismissed in limine. The petitioners specifically assail the findings recorded in Paragraph-7,Page-5 of the judgment to the effect that their contractual engagement, irrespective of duration or availability of posts, did not entitle them to regularization as a matter of right, and that their initial appointment lacked advertisement and prescribed recruitment procedure, hence regularization would offend the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates.

2.The leamed counsel for the petitioners contends that the aforementioned findings are effoneous and based on misreading of law and facts. He argued that the petitioners had served for considerable time and were conditionally recommended by the Selection Committee, and that the Court ought to have considered their length of service and recommendation as sufficient basis for

3.I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record, including the impugred judgment.

4.It is a well-settled principle of law that review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLUL Rule I CPC is a limited one, and cannot be exercised as a substitute for an appeal. A review is maintainable only if there is a manifest error apParent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge or possession of the applicant at the time of the original decision. The grounds taken in the instant review petition do not fulfill the parameters of a valid review as laid down in judicial precedents. The contentions raised were fully considered and adjudicated upon in the original judgment. The findings in Paragraph- 7 of the impugned judgment are based on settled law,

A

particularly the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vice-Chancellor, Agriculture (Jniversity, Pesha'n'ar v. Muhammad Shafiq and others (2024 SCMR 527), wherein it was held that no vested right to regularization exists in favor of contractual employees unless supported by a clear statutory framework and lawful appointment process' The petitioners' appointments were neither made pursuant to an open advertisement nor in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitnent. Their conditional /i recommendation, without availability of sanctioned posts or proper appointment orders, did not create any enforceable right. These findings were recorded after due appreciation of evidence and applicable law. No error or omission, much less any patent illegality, has been demonstrated in this regard. The plea regarding length of service was also duly considered but rightly rejected for lack of legal backing and violation of merit principles.

5.Review cannot be sought merely because a party is dissatisfied with the conclusion of the Court. What is urged in the present review is, at best, a re-argument of the same issues already addressed and decided in the main judgment. The petitioners have neither shown any new evidence nor any error apparent on the face of the record to justiff review.

A

6.In view of the foregoing, the review petition is devoidofmeritandisaccordinglydismissedinlimine.

W

Announced.

Dt:01.8.2025. r/{

IUDGE

Imrard*

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice MuhammadTariq Afridi tt

I