Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Damodar Dass vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 12 January, 2026
RA No.69/2025 in
OA No. 060/1089/2017
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CHANDIGARH
Review Application No.69 of 2025
in
OA No. 060/1547/2017
This the 12th day of January, 2026
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER(A)
Damodar Dass son of Sh. Dharam Chand, aged 59 years, working
as Sr. Lab Attendant at Government Model Sr. Secondary School,
Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
........Applicant in
OA/Review Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Finance-cum-Education Secretary, U.T. Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Chandigarh
Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
...... Respondents
O R D E R (in circulation)
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.
1. This Review Application has been filed under under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908 read with Section 17 of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section 22 (3) (1) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for review of order dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Hon„ble Tribunal in OA No. 060/1547/2017.
2. The arguments in the OA No.060/1547/2017 were heard at length and the Original Application was dismissed vide order dated NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.03 17:16:50+05'30' RA No.69/2025 in OA No. 060/1089/2017 2 06.10.2025 with the following directions:-
"31. In view of these facts, we find that the respondents acted within the ambit of the Recruitment Rules, Notifications, and administrative instructions, without any evidence of malafide intent or negligence that could have caused prejudice to the applicant. The Original Application, therefore, does not merit interference and is dismissed."
3. The review applicant submits that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it proceeds on an incorrect factual premise regarding availability of vacancies under the 1% quota, ignores documentary evidence and the respondents‟ own admission that a post was reserved for the applicant, fails to consider the unjustified seven-year administrative delay in convening the DPC, and wrongly denies relief on the ground of superannuation, contrary to settled law that an employee‟s accrued right to consideration for promotion cannot be defeated by departmental delay and that notional promotion with consequential pensionary benefits is admissible even after retirement, rendering the findings legally unsustainable and vitiated.
4. This Tribunal is of the view that the above order was a detailed order given after hearing both the counsels as well as the pleadings on record. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon‟ble Apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: "a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.03 17:16:50+05'30' RA No.69/2025 in OA No. 060/1089/2017 3 only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it". This Tribunal can n ot review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the Hon‟ble Apex court in the said case that: Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment".
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its 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 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) 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 NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.03 17:16:50+05'30' RA No.69/2025 in OA No. 060/1089/2017 4 development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) 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."
6. As per the above, 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.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the law noticed hereinabove is squarely applicable in the present case and since no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out or established, the present Review Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed in circulation.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.03 17:16:50+05'30'