AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the instant Review Application filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicant (applicant in OA) has sought review of order dated 30.05.2025 passed in OA No.050/00785/2019. The operative portion of the said order in OA reads as under:-
“27.On the basis of above analysis and keeping in view the fact that selection process was strictly confined for the post of AEN (Group „B‟) Safety category, thus we find no apparent error in the recommendation dt. 16.04.2019 of the Chief Medical Superintendent and the decision of the respondent authorities to not to allow the applicant in viva-voce test.
28.In view of above, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the applicant and balance of convenience does not lie in his favour. The OA is liable to be dismissed.
29.As a result, OA is dismissed accordingly. All pending MAs are also disposed. No order as to costs.”
It is submitted that the applicant preferred a Writ Jurisdiction case No.12896/2025, assailing the order of the Tribunal before the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Patna. Vide order dated 13.07.2026, the Hon'ble High Court, after hearing the petitioner (applicant in OA), granted him the liberty to file an appropriate review petition before this Tribunal, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, thereby permitting him to seek a review of the final order. The order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the Hon‟ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition reads as under :-
“Though the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Ld Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CAT"), Patna Bench, Patna in OA/050/00785/2019, however at the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of certain documents, which would go to show that the advertisement issued by the Respondents, vide notification dated 26.10.2018, for making selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Group-B) against 70% quota pertaining to E.C.Railway is not only for the selection of Assistant Engineer (Group-B), safety category but also pertains to non-safety category posts, hence it is submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to file a review petition before the Ld. CAT for review of the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Ld. CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in OA/050/00785/2019, however it is prayed that it be directed that limitation may not come in the way of the petitioner, in case the review petition is filed within a period of three weeks from today.
2.Having regard to the limited submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and not opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, we deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to file review petition before the Ld. CAT, Patna Bench, Patna for review of the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2025 and in case such a review petition is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the Ld. CAT, Patna Bench, Patna shall consider the same on merits and pass a reasoned and a speaking order expeditiously.
3.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
The Review Applicant through instant RA contends that the Tribunal failed to consider material facts in their correct legal perspective, which he asserts constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider Rule 532(4) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000, which was introduced through Advance Correction Slip dated 09.04.2007 and provides for relaxation of medical standards in appropriate cases for promotion from Group-C to Group-B, including consideration for specific posts. It is submitted that the applicant was medically declared “Not Fit for Group-B in Safety Category”, which by itself does not establish that he was medically unfit for appointment/promotion against a Non-Safety Category Group-B post. The distinction between Safety and Non-Safety Category posts has not been properly appreciated. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the applicant‟s specific pleading that, despite his medical finding relating to the Safety Category, similarly situated candidates were subsequently promoted/posted against Non-Safety Category AEN (Group-B) posts
It is stated that the finding in the impugned order that the selection was confined to AEN (Group-B) Safety Category and not Non-Safety Category is contrary to the documentary material relied upon by the applicant, particularly the postings reflected in Annexure A/11. The said contradiction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further stated that the Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the judgments relied upon by the applicant concerning the applicability and effect of para 532(4) of IRMM, 2000 and that the applicant had specifically placed on record Annexure A/13 Series (Pages 99–106) showing that at other places also persons had been medically examined and promoted against Non-Safety Category posts, but the said material has not been considered in its true perspective.
It is also submitted that the impugned order has resulted in an anomalous situation whereby the applicant, though declared unfit only for the Safety Category, has been denied consideration even for Non-Safety Category posts, whereas other similarly placed candidates have been considered and posted against such posts. The non-consideration of the aforesaid material pleadings, documents and the distinction between Safety and Non-Safety Category constitutes a failure to consider material evidence, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction.
We have carefully considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and examined the order against which the review has been sought. According to us, there is no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review. The Review Applicant is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.
The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review applicant earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in :-
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that “the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision.” At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
“(i)The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application. We are convinced that there is no error in our order dated 30.05.2025 passed in the captioned OA and the same does not warrant any interference through review jurisdiction.
The Review Application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.