Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amardeep vs Govt. Of Nctd on 4 September, 2019
1 RA 17/2019 in OA 2549/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
RA No. 17/2019 in
OA No. 2549/2017
Reserved on 30.08.2019
Pronounced on: 04.09.2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Amardeep,
S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh,
R/o J-1-119, Old Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43. ... Review Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yashpal Rangi )
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through:
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Director of Education
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, GNCTD, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Kumar Jha )
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Yashpal Rangi, counsel for applicant and Mr. Anuj Kumar Jha, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
2 RA 17/2019 in OA 2549/2017
2. The relevant facts of the case are that in response to advertisement no. 01/14 of the respondents (DSSSB) the applicant applied for the post of TGT (Computer Science) with post code 192/14 under general category. The last date for submission of application was 28.02.2014. His case is that he had applied for OBC certificate and he secured the OBC certificate on 13.01.2015 and as such he sent a representation to the respondent for treating him as OBC candidate and his further case is that the last candidate selected in OBC category had secured 68.6 marks whereas he had secured 73.75 marks and in view of the above facts he sought a direction to the respondents to consider him under OBC category. After going through the every material on record and going through the terms and conditions and instructions in the advertisement, the OA was dismissed by order dated 14.12.2018. The present RA has been filed seeking review of dismissal order.
3. The scope of review lies in a narrow compass as prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule (1) of CPC. None of the grounds raised in the RA brings it within the scope and purview of review. It appears that the review applicant is trying to re-argue the matter afresh, as if in appeal, which is not permissible. If in the opinion of the review applicant the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere. Under the garb of review, the review applicant cannot be allowed to raise the same grounds, which were considered and rejected by the Tribunal while passing the order under review.
4. Existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order. The review applicant has failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the order under review. 3 RA 17/2019 in OA 2549/2017
5. 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. 4 RA 17/2019 in OA 2549/2017
(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."
6. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paras, we do not find any merit in the RA. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed.
(S.N.Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) 'sk'