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

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

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU

Hearing through video conferencing

Review Application No. 61/33/2025
Reserved on: 08.09.2026
th
Pronounced on: This the 29 day of October 2026
HON’BLE SHRI RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON’BLE SHRI DIWAKAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mst. Gulshan Banoo age 52 years D/o Late Sh. Shams-ul-Din
W/o Sh. Ashiq Hussian R/o village Danda Tehsil Bhalla District,
Doda. 182202.
…..Applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. O P Thakur, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. R K S Thakur)
VERSUS
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 )




RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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.
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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.
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'

:: 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
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, OU=
Stenographer Grade D, PostalCode=180001, L=jammu, S=
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, STREET="Wazarat Road, Opposite
Chief Secretary Camp office Jammu Jandk", Phone=
53b906b465d826ee1c1d19e3b6adaf29e74297b997621c778f
2df2516f9d70fe, SERIALNUMBER=
c9dcf1f6ccd342a2ad4bd12ef417af4694d0c57afe8c3bc762c3
5a192f223826, [email protected], CN=RAJAT SINGH
PATHANIA
I am the author of this document
2026.10.29 15:42:30+05'30'