Aastrav Vajpayee vs Rajat Goyal & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

The present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the final order dated 20.08.2026 passed in O.A. No. 3793/2018, particularly insofar as the appointment of the review applicant (Respondent No.6) was quashed and set aside as void ab initio.

The principal contention of the review applicant is that his services were terminated on 05.02.2021 and that, subsequently, pursuant to the proceedings in O.A. No.301/2021, he was reinstated vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi after verification of his experience. It is contended that since the said order of reinstatement has not been challenged in O.A. No.3793/2018, the finding regarding his appointment could not have been made.

We find no error apparent on the face of the record. The order dated 18.01.2024 was admittedly passed subsequent to the filing of O.A. No.3793/2018 in the year 2018. The Review Applicant was a party to the said proceedings and was fully aware of their pendency. It was incumbent upon him, as well as the official respondents, to place the complete and correct facts before the Tribunal. The subsequent order of reinstatement could not, by itself, efface or override the judicial proceedings already pending before this Tribunal.

The Review Applicant had, in fact, instituted O.A. No.301/2021 challenging his termination. The said OA was disposed of on 25.08.2022 with liberty to him to make a representation and with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order. Significantly, the Review Applicant did not implead the applicant(s) in O.A. No.3793/2018 in those proceedings, nor was the pendency and effect of the present OA brought to the notice in the manner now sought to be projected. Thus, the subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted to operate as a means of bypassing the adjudication in O.A. No.3793/2018.

The contention that the Review Applicant had furnished explanations/affidavits pursuant to the departmental memoranda and that his experience was subsequently found valid does not constitute an error apparent. The Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, had considered the Inspection Report, the Committee Report and the material placed before it regarding verification of the experience certificate. The review applicant's attempt to rely upon the subsequent departmental verification and to contend that the Committee had merely stated that the certificate “could not be verified” essentially seeks a re-appreciation of the material, which is beyond the limited scope of review.

The fact that the review applicant was subsequently reinstated also does not render the findings recorded by the Tribunal erroneous. The order of reinstatement dated 18.01.2024 was not the subject matter of adjudication in O.A. No.3793/2018 and, more importantly, the pendency of the said OA, filed much earlier, could not be ignored while undertaking the subsequent administrative exercise.

The review applicant's contention that the Tribunal proceeded on an incomplete record also cannot be accepted. If any subsequent development had a bearing on the pending proceedings, it was for the review applicant and the official respondents to bring the same on record. The review applicant, despite being aware of the present proceedings, cannot now seek to take advantage of facts which were not placed before the Tribunal at the appropriate stage.

Likewise, the contentions regarding his eligibility under the Recruitment Rules, genuineness of the experience certificate, verification by the workshop authorities and the alleged absence of any finding that the certificate was false, relate essentially to the merits of the matter already adjudicated. Such contentions may constitute grounds for appeal, but cannot furnish a ground for review unless a patent error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.

The contention regarding the locus of the original applicant also does not disclose any error apparent. The OA had been adjudicated on the basis of the legality of the selection and appointment in the light of the applicable Recruitment Rules and the official material placed on record. The relief granted by the Tribunal was also specifically confined to the parties before it.

We have carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the filing and disposal of O.A. No.301/2021 and the subsequent reinstatement of the Review Applicant. The Hon’ble Lt. Governor, while passing the order of reinstatement dated 18.01.2024, was not apprised of the complete status of O.A. No.3793/2018 in which the review applicant was a party. The review applicant, having consciously pursued a separate proceeding without impleading the applicant(s) herein, cannot now seek to reopen the matter by relying upon the subsequent administrative order. The course adopted by the review applicant effectively bypassed the proceedings pending before this Tribunal.

In review jurisdiction, the Tribunal cannot undertake a re-hearing of the matter or substitute another view merely because another interpretation of the material is possible. No self-evident error, omission or mistake warranting review has been demonstrated. Rather, the review applicant seeks to reopen the merits of the findings already recorded after consideration of the relevant material.

In view of the foregoing, we find no ground for interference with the final order dated 20.08.2026. The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.

Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs