M. Shanmugam vs Union Of India & Anr.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi:

This MA has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of 8 days’ delay in filing the accompanying Review Application against the order dated 07.07.2026 passed in O.A. No. 652/2026.

The applicant submits that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and occurred on account of the applicant’s bona fide prosecution of the remedy before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 10611/2026, titled M. Shanmugam v. Union of India & Anr. It is submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2026 with liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal by way of a Review Application. It is further submitted that immediately thereafter the applicant took steps for obtaining the order, consulting counsel, preparing the Review Application and completing the necessary formalities for filing. It is, therefore, prayed that the short delay of 8 days be condoned in the interest of justice.

Having considered the submissions and the explanation furnished for the delay, we are satisfied that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for not filing the Review Application within the prescribed period. The delay of 8 days is short and appears to have occurred in the course of bona fide prosecution of the remedy before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. No deliberate or negligent conduct on the part of the applicant is made out. Further, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents if the delay is condoned.

In the circumstances, the M.A. seeking condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 8 days in filing the Review Application is condoned. The Review Application is taken up for consideration on merits.

The Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 07.07.2026 passed in OA No. 652/2026, principally on the ground that his specific prayer for grant of proportionate relaxation in permissible mistakes, corresponding to the actual period of functional disruption allegedly suffered by him during the Skill Test, was not expressly considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant is not seeking rehearing of the matter on merits or reconsideration of the decision rendered in OA No. 3783/2024, but only consideration of the aforesaid specific prayer. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 10611/2026, whereby liberty was granted to the applicant to approach this Tribunal by way of a Review Application.

We have considered the Review Application and perused the order dated 07.07.2026 passed in OA No. 652/2026. From the said order, it is apparent that, at the very first hearing on 20.02.2026, learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the issue involved in the OA was squarely covered by the decisions already rendered by this Tribunal and had sought similar disposal and relief. The Tribunal thereafter granted an opportunity to the respondents to file their objections. Despite opportunities, the respondents did not file their response and, on 07.07.2026, again sought adjournment, which was declined in view of the repeated opportunities already granted.

The Tribunal thereafter disposed of the OA specifically in terms of its order passed in OA No. 3783/2024. Significantly, the operative portion of the order dated 07.07.2026 did not merely dispose of the OA simpliciter, but directed the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, to apply a normalization formula of 2% in the case of the applicant so as to repair the damage caused by the respondents’ arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal action at the examination centre and to issue the revised result with all consequential benefits as sought by the applicant in the relief clause of the OA. Thus, the nature and extent of the relief to be granted to the applicant stood specifically determined by the Tribunal by directing application of the 2% normalization formula in terms of the earlier decision in OA No. 3783/2024.

The grievance raised in the Review Application, therefore, essentially seeks consideration of the applicant’s alternative formulation that the relaxation should correspond to the alleged actual functional disruption of 20–25% of the test duration. Such a plea would require an examination of the factual extent of disruption, its impact upon the performance of the applicant, and the appropriate quantum of relaxation. These matters pertain to the merits of the claim and cannot be examined in exercise of the limited jurisdiction of review. It is well settled that review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction and that a review cannot be sought merely for rehearing and reappraisal of the issues already considered or for obtaining a different relief.

In the present case, there is also no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The Tribunal consciously adopted the 2% normalization formula by following its earlier decision in OA No. 3783/2024 and expressly directed grant of consequential benefits in terms of the relief clause. The fact that the order does not separately reproduce or deal with every component of the relief clause cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be construed as an apparent error of law or a sufficient ground for review. The applicant’s contention that a higher, proportionate relaxation ought to have been granted would amount to seeking reconsideration of the quantum and nature of the relief, which falls outside the permissible scope of review.

The liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.07.2026 only enables the applicant to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Tribunal and does not enlarge the scope of such jurisdiction or constitute any finding on the merits of the proposed review. We have, accordingly, examined the grievance raised by the applicant within the parameters of Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, but find no error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting review of the order dated 07.07.2026.

Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed in circulation. There shall be no order as to costs.