AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The present Review Application had been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1337/2018, whereby the O.A had been dismissed. Following reliefs have been prayed for in the instant R.A :-
“a)Allow the present Review Application and review/recall the Final Order dated 17.09.2026 passed in O.A. No. 1337/2018.
b)In the interest of Justice the Review Application may be listed before the court for hearing; and,
c)Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The applicant had contended that the Tribunal had failed to adjudicate his prayer for disposal of his representations dated 11.12.2017 and 02.01.2018 by a speaking and reasoned order. He had also alleged an inconsistency in the chronology recorded in the judgment and contended that Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the departmental examination of his case, the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and the judicial precedents relied upon by him had not been properly considered.
We have considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and find that the applicant has essentially sought reconsideration of the issues already adjudicated in the O.A. Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the facts or substitute a different view merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision. The judgment under review had considered the controversy and observed that the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to bring the applicant’s service status to its logical conclusion. The applicant’s grievance regarding the manner in which his submissions and representations had been dealt with does not, in the absence of a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, warrant review of the judgment. The other grounds raised also do not disclose any such error or other sufficient reason for exercising the review jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. The judgment dated 17.09.2026 passed in O.A. No. 1337/2018 shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.