DB dismisses review plea in recruitment case, says review cannot be appeal in disguise

24/04/2026

JAMMU, Apr 23: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a review petition challenging its earlier judgment in a recruitment dispute, holding that the petitioners were seeking a rehearing of the case under the guise of review.
A division bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem rejected the plea filed by Sapna Devi and another against the judgment dated February 17, 2026, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision quashing a selection process for the post of Knitting Instructor.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Abhinav Sharma along with advocate Mudassir Maqbool, argued that they were not properly served notice in the earlier proceedings and that their qualifications were valid.
However, the court rejected the contention regarding service of notice, observing:
"Once the petitioners came to know about their selection and subsequent appointment on the basis of those addresses, it does not lie in their mouth to contend that the addresses were vague… service was rightly deemed to have been effected."
The bench also noted that despite being granted opportunity, the petitioners failed to raise objections during the original proceedings.
"Raising such hyper-technical objections after the judgment has gone against them is highly belated and cannot be entertained. This practice is strongly deprecated."
On merits, the court held that the findings regarding ineligibility of candidates and irregularities in the selection process had already been examined and affirmed, and could not be reopened in review.
Emphasising the limited scope of review jurisdiction, the court said:
"A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise… What the petitioners are essentially seeking is re-appreciation of evidence… which is impermissible."
Citing Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, the High Court reiterated that review is maintainable only in cases of error apparent on the face of record and not for re-arguing the case.
The court further pointed out factual inconsistencies in the petitioners' claims, including incorrect assertions regarding interview dates.
"The petitioners are proceeding on erroneous factual premise… such contentions are factually incorrect and untenable," the bench observed.
Holding that no error apparent on record was made out, the High Court dismissed the review petition, reaffirming its earlier judgment.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty