Dismissal of Special Leave Petition and subsequent delay bar review of judgment where no error is apparent.

The petitioner, appointed as a Munsiff in 2000 under the Reserved Backward Area (RBA) category, was terminated from service on September 10, 2021, after multiple inquiries concluded his RBA certificate was fabricated.

Initially, the Registrar Vigilance found the certificate fake.

Subsequently, an LPA bench directed the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Bandipora to inquire.

While the matter was before the Supreme Court, the DC first reported the certificate as fake (Jan 2018), but later, following a review petition filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, the DC issued a third report (July 2018) validating the certificate.

The High Court’s Full Court recommended termination based on the earlier findings of fabrication, leading to a writ petition [WP(C) 1221/2021] which was dismissed on July 18, 2023.

The petitioner’s SLP and subsequent review before the Supreme Court were dismissed by July 24, 2024.

The petitioner then filed this review petition before the High Court on December 31, 2024, with a delay of 502 days.

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" to condone the 502-day delay in filing the review petition.

2. Whether the Divisional Commissioner had the legal authority to delegate his statutory power of review/revision to the Deputy Commissioner.

The Court applied the principles of limitation requiring "sufficient cause" for condonation under the Limitation Act.

Rules 31 and 32 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005: Rule 31 provides an appellate remedy to the Divisional Commissioner, while Rule 32 confers revisional power to the same authority to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of orders passed by authorized officers.

The administrative law principle of delegatus non potest delegare, holding that statutory quasi-judicial powers cannot be further delegated unless expressly permitted by the statute.

While the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not result in a "merger" of judgments, a review is only maintainable if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court found the 502-day delay terminal, noting that even after the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's final review in July 2024, he waited five additional months to approach the High Court, providing only vague "legal advice" as an excuse.

The Divisional Commissioner, acting as a statutory revisional authority under Rule 32, abdicated his duty by transferring the review petition to the DC Bandipora for adjudication.

Since the DC was the subordinate officer whose report was being challenged, he could not legally sit in judgment of his own prior findings or exercise the Divisional Commissioner's delegated power.

The Court observed that the petitioner "cleverly" used this unauthorized third report to withdraw his SLP as infructuous, but such a report was a legal nullity and could not override the concurrent findings of fabrication.

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the review petition.