Gulshan Banoo (I.E. r/n 5 of The oa) vs Animal and sheep Husbandry Department and Ors on 29 October 2026

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-cum Secretary to Govt, Animal Husbandry Department, Civil Sectt. Jammu.180001

2. Director, Sheep Husbandry, Jammu 180002

3. District Sheep Husbandry Officer, Udhampur. 182101

4. Secretary, J&K Service Selection Board, Zum Zum Hotel, Rambagh, Srinagar. 190001

5. Sh. Asif Iqbal S/o Sh. Gh. Mustafa Akhnoon, R/o C/o Diamond Optical Eye Clinic near District Hospital, Kishtwar, Tehsil and District Kishtwar 182204.

.....Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned Addl. A.G. Mr. F S Butt for R5)

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 2 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

O R D E R (Final) Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the judgment dated 27.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.959/2020, whereby the Original Application filed by the answering private respondent was allowed and the appointment of the applicant to the post of Stock Assistant, District Cadre Udhampur, was quashed. The official respondents were directed to appoint the answering respondent notionally against the said post from the date on which she and the other selected candidates had been appointed. At the same time, keeping in view that the applicant had already been working for about four years, the official respondents were directed to create a supernumerary post for her adjustment.

2. The applicant had earlier challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in WP(C) No.238/2025, raising substantially the same grounds as those urged in the present Review Application. During the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, the Department brought to its notice that one post under the direct recruitment quota was available in the Directorate. The applicant thereafter sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek review before this Tribunal. The writ petition was accordingly

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

permitted to be withdrawn on 25.08.2025 with the observation that any remedy taken before the Tribunal would be dealt with in accordance with law. The present Review Application was thereafter filed on 25.09.2025 along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

3. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties, and perused the written submissions submitted by them. The jurisdiction of review is narrow and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. A review is maintainable only on the recognized grounds contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A review cannot be used for rehearing the matter, re-appreciating the evidence or substituting another possible view for the one already taken.

4. Tested on the aforesaid principles, none of the grounds urged by the applicant discloses an error apparent on the face of the record. The contention regarding constructive res judicata was specifically considered by this Tribunal in the judgment under review. The Tribunal recorded that the earlier proceedings concerned the revised criteria and revised provisional selection list and that the issue of incorrect calculation of marks was not available to the applicant at that stage. It was further noticed that

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 4 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

the appointment of the answering respondent itself was not the subject matter of the earlier litigation and that such appointment had subsequently been made on 21.02.2019. The conclusion that the issue involved in the Original Application was not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceedings was thus a conscious adjudication on the basis of the record. The same cannot be reopened in review merely by reiterating the plea of res judicata.

5. The reliance placed upon the decisions in Mohinder Singh v. State of J&K & Ors., T.A. No.5807/2021 and Ramesh Kumar v. State of J&K & Ors., T.A. No.5745/2021, also does not disclose any error apparent in the judgment under review. Apart from the fact that the said judgment was rendered subsequently on 31.12.2024, the factual circumstances therein were materially different. A subsequent judicial pronouncement cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for converting review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC also makes it clear that a subsequent decision altering or modifying the law is not, by itself, a ground for review.

6. The applicant has also relied upon her length of service, training and subsequent promotion to the post of Flock Supervisor. These circumstances do not constitute a ground for review. In fact, the Tribunal had already taken the period of

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 5 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

service and attendant equities into consideration while moulding the relief and had directed creation of a supernumerary post for adjustment of the applicant. The reliance upon the judgment reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494, therefore, does not establish any error in the order under review. The principle that an employee who was not personally responsible for an irregular appointment may, in appropriate circumstances, be protected against immediate displacement was already substantially taken into account while granting the applicant the protection of a supernumerary post, without disturbing the entitlement of the meritorious candidate.

7. There is also substance in the objection arising from the pendency of WP(C) No.3047/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the official respondents have challenged the judgment dated 27.12.2024 and the present applicant is arrayed as respondent No.2. The applicant has entered appearance in the said proceedings through counsel and is, therefore, in a position to place before the Hon'ble High Court the grounds which she seeks to urge against the judgment under review. In these circumstances, the attempt to reopen substantially overlapping issues before this Tribunal through review proceedings would also run contrary to the principle embodied in Order XLVII Rule 1(2) CPC.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 6 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

8. The Review Application is also barred by limitation. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes a period of thirty days for filing a review application. The judgment sought to be reviewed was passed on 27.12.2024, whereas the present Review Application was filed on 25.09.2025. The applicant seeks exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting WP(C) No.238/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

9. The said contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. Section 14 is intended to protect a litigant who, with due diligence and in good faith, prosecutes a proceeding before a court which is unable to entertain it by reason of a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. Had the applicant approached a forum which lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and thereafter, upon such defect coming to light, pursued the matter before the competent forum with due diligence and in good faith, her case could have stood on a different footing and the question of exclusion of the period spent in such proceeding could have been examined in accordance with law. That, however, is not the position here.

10. The applicant consciously invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court against the judgment of this Tribunal. There is no finding that the Hon'ble High Court lacked jurisdiction

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 7 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

to entertain the writ petition, nor was the writ petition returned or dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On the contrary, the applicant herself sought withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the remedy of review before this Tribunal. Mere grant of such liberty does not amount to a finding that the earlier proceeding was before a court suffering from a defect of jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The period spent in a proceeding before a competent forum cannot, merely because the proceeding is subsequently withdrawn and another remedy is pursued, be mechanically excluded from limitation. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Arifa & Ors. v. Abhiman Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. is also relevant in this context, namely that liberty to pursue a fresh proceeding does not by itself save limitation.

11. Thus, the applicant has failed to establish any legally sustainable basis for exclusion of the period spent before the Hon'ble High Court. Even otherwise, the explanation regarding her posting in a far-flung area, torrential rains and blockage of the National Highway does not disclose any ground warranting interference in review jurisdiction, particularly when the Review Application itself does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 8 :: R.A. No. 61/33/ 2025

12. On an overall consideration of the matter, we find that the applicant is essentially seeking a rehearing and re-appreciation of issues which were consciously considered and adjudicated in the judgment dated 27.12.2024. No new and important matter or evidence has been shown which, despite due diligence, was unavailable at the time of the original decision; no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated; and no other sufficient reason warranting exercise of review jurisdiction has been made out. The Review Application is also beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the applicant has failed to establish a legally sustainable basis for exclusion of the intervening period.

13. Accordingly, the Review Application, along with the application seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. The judgment dated 27.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.959/2020 shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(DIWAKAR SINGH)

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) Judicial Member Administrative Member RS Pathania Steno-D

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA