AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The present Review Application has been filed seeking review/modification of the order dated 25.08.2026 passed in O.A. No. 61/1175/2026. The Review Applicant has principally relied upon the communication dated 11.08.2026 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Doda, whereby his request for deployment to a nearby school was considered and a proposal for his deployment from HSS Gundna to HS Tantna was stated to have been approved by the competent authority. It is contended that the said communication and approval constitute a material development having a direct bearing upon the grievance raised in the Original Application and that, had the same been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Original Application would have been dealt with differently.
We have carefully gone through the Review Application, the grounds urged therein and the order dated 25.08.2026 sought to be reviewed. It is well settled that the power of review is a limited power and cannot be exercised as if the Tribunal were hearing an appeal against its earlier order. Review jurisdiction can be invoked only on the well-recognized grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient ground analogous thereto. A review cannot be sought merely for rehearing the matter or for obtaining a different view on the facts already considered.
In the present case, the order dated 25.08.2026 did not finally adjudicate upon the applicant’s claim for deployment to any particular school. The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within the stipulated period. Thus, the grievance of the applicant was left open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law. The applicant, therefore, cannot legitimately contend that the Tribunal, by the order under review, finally rejected his claim for deployment to a nearby school or to HS Tantna.
The principal reliance placed by the applicant is upon the communication dated 11.08.2026 and the alleged approval recorded thereon for deployment to HS Tantna. Significantly, the said communication is admittedly anterior to the order dated 25.08.2026 sought to be reviewed. It is, therefore, not a subsequent event occurring after the passing of the order under review. The applicant seeks to explain its non-production by stating that the document was not within his possession and could not, despite due diligence, be produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. However, apart from making such assertion, no sufficient material has been placed on record to establish that the said document could not reasonably have been produced before the Tribunal despite exercise of due diligence.
Even otherwise, assuming that the communication dated 11.08.2026 and the approval recorded thereon are taken into consideration, the same do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 25.08.2026. The Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Application, had directed the competent authority to consider the applicant’s grievance and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The alleged approval for deployment to HS Tantna can very well be placed before and considered by the competent authority while examining the applicant’s representation pursuant to the said order. The existence of such communication, therefore, does not render the order dated 25.08.2026 erroneous or legally unsustainable so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction.
The prayer made in the Review Application, in substance, seeks a positive direction to the respondents to give effect to the alleged approval for deployment of the applicant to HS Tantna and, in the alternative, to direct consideration and implementation thereof. Grant of such relief would necessarily require examination of the relevant departmental record, the nature and effect of the communication dated 11.08.2026, the authority competent to accord such approval and the legality of the deployment orders in question. Such an exercise would amount to adjudication of the matter and cannot be undertaken in the limited jurisdiction of review, particularly when the Original Application itself had already been disposed of with a direction for consideration of the applicant’s grievance by the competent authority.
On an overall consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 25.08.2026. He has also failed to establish the existence of any new and important matter or evidence satisfying the requirement of due diligence so as to warrant review of the said order.
Accordingly, we find no ground to review, recall or modify the order dated 25.08.2026 passed in O.A. No. 1175 of 2026. The Review Application is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.