AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Dr, Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
The present review application has been placed before us under circulation in terms of Rule 17(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 with MA No. 2687/2023 for condoning delay in filing the present review application. For the reasons stated in the affidavit of aforesaid MA. MA is allowed. Delay in filing the review application is condoned.
In the present review application the applicant seek review of the order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the original application was dismissed.
We have gone through the order dated 19.04.2023 and have also gone through the grounds taken in the review application. The grounds taken by the applicant for review of the order dated 19.04.2023 are that the applicant has claimed relief as per 303(A) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. I which is statutory rule and bound on respondents. The applicant has not claimed relief to quash the seniority list but he seeks only to correct the seniority position in respect of his junior person Shri Udai Veer Singh. He further submits that the larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case of A. Sagayanathan and others vs. Divisional Personnel Officer SBI Division Southern Railway Banglore (Civil Appeal No. 4997-5002 of 1990) has held that despite delay matter required investigation and disposal on merit afresh. He further say that in another similar case Chairman Puri Gramya Bank and others vs. Ananda Chandra Das and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “Seniority held to be determined on the basis of ranking given by Selection Board and not on the basis of date of joining report.
From perusal of the order dated 19.04.2023, it is clear that the same has been passed after hearing counsel for the parties at that time. Hence, the applicant wants to reopen the issue in the OA by filing review application, which is not permissible as per law.
In the garb of present review application, the applicant wants to re-argue the entire matter once again which is not permissible. The scope of review is very limited. The term “mistake is apparent” by its very connotation signifying an error which is evident from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or on the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof required long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of order XLVII Rule 1 CPC or Section 22 (3) (f) of the A.T. Act 1985. My view is supported by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I Vs. Tarit Ranjan & Ors. 2004 SCC (L&S) 160. Therefore, the applicant wants to re-agitate the case all over again, which is not permissible in terms of Section 22 (3) (f) of AT Act 1985 and as such no review of the order in question is required.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
“10.It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.”
The scope of review is very limited and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority in respect of original order passing a fresh order and re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
For the reasons aforesaid, we find no reason to review order dated 19.04.2023. Hence, this review application is dismissed under rules of circulation.