AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As Per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member Judicial
This Review Application has been filed by the applicant in the OA under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of Order dated 21.08.2026 passed by this Bench in OA No. 3336/2025 which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 21.08.2026.
The grounds for review raised by the Review Applicant that the findings in para 15 of order dated 21.08.2026 that the applicant had neither challenged to DRM guidelines dated 16.08.2016 nor the revised guidelines dated 03.09.2024 is an error apparent on the face of record as the applicant never challenged the validity of said guidelines. The dispute was as such concerning the interpretation and implementation of the guidelines and not their validity.
The applicant had not sought substantive relief against posting orders dated 29.03.2025 and 24.07.2025 is contrary to the pleadings and therefore, an error apparent on face of record.
The findings in para 15 that DRMs posted pursuant to the orders dated 29.03.2025 and 24.07.2025 were necessary parties is an error apparent on face of record.
The applicant challenge was directed to the vacancy determination and allocation process and not to the individual eligibility, suitability or personal rights of DRMs.
The impugned order fails to adjudicate the applicant's case concerning the transitional shortlist year 2024 under revised guidelines dated 03.09.2024. Applicant case was shortlisted in year 2024, a special transitional period and 8 vacancies arising during the relevant transitional period were required to be taken into account in determining the 2024 IRSE vacancies.
We have gone through our final order dated 21.08.2026 in OA No 3336/2025 and found that the grounds taken by the review applicant has been duly taken into account while deciding the same. The review applicant's contention was dealt in detail in paras 18 to 22 of order dated 21.08.2026 in light paras 15 and 16 of DRMs guidelines dated 16.08.2016.
As is evident from the above, all the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the review applicant in OA had been duly taken into account and the ground taken in the present Review Application itself is not tenable.
From a perusal of the record, it is seen that order dated 21.08.2026 of this Bench in OA No. 3336/2025 was passed after carefully going through the pleadings, arguments, rules and judicial pronouncements on the subject.
Under order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
It is stare decisis that even when the order passed is wrong and erroneous, the Review Application would not be maintainable. It can be entertained only on the limited grounds, such as (a) there is an error apparent on the face of record, (b) some such documents, which could not be produced at the time of final adjudication despite due diligence, are brought to the notice of the court with Review Application and (c) there is some other sufficient reason, so far as present RA, no any such ground is available to the applicant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Others Versus Kamal Sengupta & another, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735. Their Lordships considered the prevalent restrictions imposed upon the courts for undertaking a review of their own judgment and have consolidated the same, under paragraph 35, for ready reference reads as:-
“35.The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i)The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds.
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
(emphasis supplied)
This Tribunal has passed detailed order dated 21.08.2026 in OA No 3336/2025 after carefully going through the pleadings and arguments put forward by the parties, discussion and analysis made in detail and the applicant is trying to re-argue the matter, which is impermissible in law. As such, on face of the record, there is no any error apparent in the order dated 21.08.2026 passed in OA No. 3336/2025 passed by this Tribunal warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction. If in the opinion of the applicant, the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere.
The review application is accordingly rejected in circulation.
No order as to costs.