Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 PHC 274
Court / Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-08-01
Parties: Mst. Sultan Zarina and others vs Govt. of K.P and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court on 2025-08-01, officially reported as 2025 PHC 274. In this matter between Mst. Sultan Zarina and others and Govt. of K.P and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025PHC274
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Tariq Afridi Title: Mst. Sultan Zarina and others vs Govt. of K.P and others Case No.: Review Petition No.07-B/2025 Date of Judgment:2025-08-01 Reported As: 2025 PHC 274 Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI, J.- Through the instant petition, filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C , the petitioners seek review of the judgment, dated 16.06.2025, passed in C.R. No.115- B/2025, whereby their civil revision petition was dismissed in limine. The petitioners specifically assail the findings recorded in Paragraph-7, Page-5 of the judgment to the effect that their contractual engagement, irrespective of duration or availability of posts, did not entitle them to regularization as a matter of right, and that their initial appointment lacked advertisement and prescribed recruitment procedure, hence regularization would offend the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the aforementioned findings are erroneous and based on misreading of law and facts. He argued that the petitioners had served for considerable time and were conditionally recommended by the Selection Committee, and that the Court ought to have considered their length of service and recommendation as sufficient basis for regularization. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record, including the impugned judgment. 4. It is a well-settled principle of law that review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC is a limited one, and cannot be exercised as a substitute for an appeal. A review is maintainable only if there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge or possession of the applicant at the time of the original decision. The grounds taken in the instant
---
## Page 2
review petition do not fulfill the parameters of a valid review as laid down in judicial precedents. The contentions raised were fully considered and adjudicated upon in the original judgment. The findings in Paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment are based on settled law, particularly the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vice-Chancellor, Agriculture University, Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq and others (2024 SCMR 527), wherein it was held that no vested right to regularization exists in favor of contractual employees unless supported by a clear statutory framework and lawful appointment process. The petitioners' appointments were neither made pursuant to an open advertisement nor in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment. Their conditional recommendation, without availability of sanctioned posts or proper appointment orders, did not create any enforceable right. These findings were recorded after due appreciation of evidence and applicable law. No error or omission, much less any patent illegality, has been demonstrated in this regard. The plea regarding length of service was also duly considered but rightly rejected for lack of legal backing and violation of merit principles. 5. Review cannot be sought merely because a party is dissatisfied with the conclusion of the Court. What is urged in the present review is, at best, a re-argument of the same issues already addressed and decided in the main judgment. The petitioners have neither shown any new evidence nor any error apparent on the face of the record to justify review. 6. In view of the foregoing, the review petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.