AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
M.A. No. 4338/2026
For the reasons mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application, we allow the same and condone the delay of 118 days in filing the accompanying Review Application filed vide Dy. No. 8907/2026.
Review Application (Dy. No. 8907/2026)
The present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by Central Administrative Tribunalthis Tribunal in O.A. No. 3064/2023, whereby the Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 132/2016), particularly the directions regarding consideration of the candidature of contractual Special Teachers by the Screening Committee, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions.
On behalf of the review applicants, it is submitted that the issue regarding grant of relaxation in the upper age limit, which according to the review applicants was the core issue involved in the Original Application, has not been specifically adjudicated.
We have considered the submissions made in the Review Application and perused the order sought to be reviewed. The grounds urged by the review applicants essentially seek reconsideration of the matter on merits. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 20.03.2026 Central Administrative Tribunalwas passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and the issue regarding upper age relaxation, as now sought to be projected, could have been specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal during the course of oral arguments. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction.
It is settled that the jurisdiction of review cannot be invoked for re-hearing the matter or for permitting a party to raise grounds which were not specifically urged or pressed at the time of original hearing. We, therefore, find no ground warranting interference with the order dated 20.03.2026.
The Review Application is accordingly dismissed in circulation. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.