1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1990. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--This is a review petition seeking recalling of the judgment of this Court recorded on 20th of August, 1990. The petition contains as many as eight grounds on which review is sought and creates ex-facie impression of being an appeal. However, the learned counsel only pressed one ground during the arguments. The ground is as follows:- "(c) That this is an admitted case between the parties that only five posts of sub-engineers fallen vacant and for all the 5 posts only 5 persons namely the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were sent to Selection Board and Selection Board have approved them. Thus, Government Notification No. Admin./A-27(46)/83, dated 20-1-1983 was violated and the petitioner was not considered at the time of promotion on the post of sub-engineer:" Government Notification mentioned in the above extracted portion of the review petition has been placed on the file during arguments. The Notification which was issued on 20th of June, 1983 lays down, inter alia, that while referring cases to the Selection Board for promotion, if possible, three names shall be forwarded for each post to be filled up. The point urged by the petitioner is that this part, of the notification was violated inasmuch as only five persons were sent for five posts under reference. We have looked into the grounds of appeal filed by the present petitioner in the Service Tribunal and rind that this point was not mentioned in the memo. of appeal which is otherwise quite detailed. In fact the position taken by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal was that he was senior as compared to the five respondents who had been promoted and it was on the basis of seniority that he claimed that he was entitled to promotion in preference to the five respondents mentioned above. His appeal was accepted by the Service Tribunal on the ground that he was senior to four out of the five civil servants against whom appeal had been filed. The Service Tribunal consequently ordered that the petitioner Aziz-ud-Din Qureshi shall be deemed to have been promoted from the specified date in place of Rehmatullah Zia. The finding on the question of seniority was vacated by this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed and the order of the Service Tribunal was consequently set aside. During the hearing of the appeal in this Court Aziz-ud-Din Oureshi petitioner in his concise statement did not raise the point which he now raises. In the concise statement his emphasis was again on seniority. It follows that the petition for review is based on a point which was neither raised before the Service Tribunal nor was agitated in this Court at the appeal stage. It is well-settled that a new point cannot be raised in a review petition. If any authority is needed on this point we may refer Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Falak Sher and another 1988 S C M R 853 and Kamal-ud-Din v. The Province of Punjab 1987 S C M R

182. In light of the foregoing the review petition fails in limine. AA./287/S.CA. Review petition dismissed.