DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVIEW of the judgment dated 25.07.2012 rendered in LPA(SWP) No. 12/2012 is sought. The scope of the review is very limited. Same does not clothe the Court with a power to re -appreciate or reconsider what the court has considered and decided. It is only when an error is apparent on the face of the record, the court has to rectify the same. In short, a review by no means permits re -determination of the points raised and decided, which in the perception of the seeker may be erroneous. A Review is by no means an appeal by disguise whereby an erroneous decision, if at all it may be, is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. Basically petitioner was admitted in the Government Primary Path -shala, Ram Nagar. Certificate was issued by the said school in his favour on 07.01.1963 Bikrami, copy of which as placed on record reveals date of birth of the petitioner therein had been recorded in urdu version, english version of which is as under:

(2.) SAID date of birth has been reflected in the subsequent certificate as also in the matriculation certificate issued in the year 1971 based on the same certificate, date of birth was recorded in the Service Book, when petitioner was appointed as Patwari. Till 2009 i.e. one year before the date of superannuation, the petitioner cleverly has filed the representation before the Chief Secretary seeking rectification of the error as had crept in the date of birth and at the same time has filed the writ petition which has been allowed vide judgment which was impugned in the LPA. Lpa was allowed, after noticing all the features, a considered judgment was passed wherein it was observed that the error as has crept in the date of birth had crept in the certificate as was issued by the Govt. Primary Pathshala on 07.01.1963 Bikrami. The petitioner has not raised any voice nor has represented when matriculation certificate was issued in his favour wherein his date of birth was reflected as 19.09.1952, then again when he had joined the services as Patwari, he had not raised any objection. It is clear that neither the Board of School Education nor the authority who had prepared service book had committed any mistake or any error while recording his date of birth in matriculation certificate or in the service records. When the Board has not committed any error nor the authority who prepared service book had committed any error in recording date of birth, how could such a relief be granted that too after the lapse of 40 years from the date matriculation certificate was issued and 36 years from the date service book of petitioner was prepared on his joining the government services. The judgments as were relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his contention such as : AIR 1964 SC 1372, : AIR 2005 SC 592 and also the judgment of this court rendered by single bench of this court reported in, 1994 SLJ 380 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12798 titled Hans Raj Sharma v. State of J & K were also referred to and discussed in the judgment under review unfavourable to the petitioner. Therefore no scope to enter into fresh discussion on the points as raised and decided on proper appreciation of law and fact.