Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Penta Radhakrishna vs East Coast Railway on 14 May, 2026
1 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
[Arising out of OA 117/2023 disposed of on 07.01.2026]
ORDER DATED: 14.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Penta Radhakrishna, aged about 56 years,
son of late Penta Kuriminaidu, permanent
resident At- Door No. 58-20-16/1/4/, PO-
APSEB Colony, PS butchirajupalem, Dist-
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and serving
as Assistant Personnel Officer, Waltair
Division, ECoR.
......Applicant(Resp. No.4 in OA)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Candra Sekharpur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda, PIN-751017.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Rail Sadan, Candra Sekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, District - Khurda. PIN-
751017.
3. Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New
Delhi, PIN-110001.
(Respondents 1 to 3 in OA)
4. Disabled Employees Association of Railway,
ECoR, represented through its Secretary K
Khetrabasi, aged about 52 years, Son of Late
K. Madhab, resident of Dayapalli, P.S-Hinjili,
Dist - Ganjam, Odisha, PIN- 761001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:05:09 +05'30'
2 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
5. Nilamadhab Joshi, aged about 51 years, Son
of Late Dinabandhu Joshi, resident of
Quarter No. 1/Type II, Rail Awas Railway
Colony, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist - Khurda, Odisha -751001.
6. Suryanarayan Padhi, aged about 28 years,
Son of Binod Chandra Padhi, resident of Plot
No. 165, Unit-III, Kharavela Nagar, Near
Nilachala Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Dist -
Khurda, Odisha-751001.
7. Rajesh Sahu, aged about 33 years, Son of
Late Alekh Charan Sahoo, resident of
Harshapriya Apartment, Ganesh Bhawan,
Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda,
Odisha-751017.
8. Bidyadhar Sahoo, aged about 57 years, Son
of Bauribandhu Sahu, resident of Quarter No.
G56/A, Accounts Colony, At/PO - Jatni, Dist-
Khurda, Odisha-752050.
9. Amit Ranjan, aged about 42 years, Son of
Shiv Janam Prasad Sharma, resident of Flat
No. 203, Jagannath Enclave, Rangamatia,
Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda,
Odisha-751017.
10. Prafulla Kumar Sahoo, aged about 45 years,
Son of Hrudananda Sahoo, resident of
Quarter No. 304 Block-G22, Mancheswar
Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda,
Odisha-751017.
11. Sanjib Kumar Dalabehera, aged about 53
years, Son of Abhimanyu Dalabehera,
resident of Quarter No. G23/A, Mancheswar
Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar, Khurda,
Odisha-751017.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:05:09 +05'30'
3 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
12. Renubala Sahoo, aged about 51 years, Wife
of Saroj Kumar Sahoo, resident of Quarter
No. G-23/C, Mancheswar Railway Colony,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Odisha-751017.
13. Pabitra Mohan Lenka, aged about 46 years,
Son of Late Panchu Lenka, resident of
Quarter No. G-20/9 Type-III, Mancheswar
Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar, Khurda,
Odisha-751017.
(Applicants in OA)
..........Opp. Parties
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents : .....
O R D E R
[Circulation]
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The Disabled Employees Association of the ECoR, along with others, filed OA No. 117/2023 broadly stating inter alia that as per Section 34 of the Rights of Person with Disability Act, 2016 and the law, the DoP&T issued OM dated 17.05.2022 relating to grant of reservation in promotion to PwBDs in Post and Services of the Central Govt. The Railway Board vide RBE No. 97/2022 issued instruction to all concerned to follow the DoP&T OM dated 17.05.2022 mutatis mutandis regarding grant of reservation to PwBD in promotion from Group-C to Group-B. As per the reservation policy, the first post is reserved for RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 4 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 PwBD candidate. The notification dated 23.11.2022 issued by the respondents inviting application for drawing a panel for 01 (one) post of APO/AWO being the first notification after the RBE No. 97/2022, the said post ought to have been reserved for PwBD instead of UR. Therefore, the action of the respondent-railways in reserving the said post of UR candidate de hors the RBE No. 97/2022 issued on 18.08.2022. Hence, applicants, in the OA, prayed to quash the Notification dated 23.11.2022 and, as a consequence, to direct the respondents to issue fresh Notification reserving the post meant for PwBD candidates in compliance to RBE No. 97/2022. The OA was admitted on 15.03.2023 giving opportunity to all the respondents to file their reply both to the merit of the matter as also to the interim relief. During pendency of the OA, the respondent-railway held the examination and empanelled one Sri Penta Radhakrishna vide memorandum No. ECoR/Pers/Gaz/APO-70%/Panel/23-24 dated 26.04.2023. Shri Penta Radhakrishna although was made one of the Respondents in the OA and was also allowed opportunity to appear and file counter, he himself waived/abandoned his right to contest the matter by not appearing or filing any reply to the OA. However, RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 5 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 Respondents-Department filed their counter. The matter was heard and finally disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 07.01.2026 with observation and direction as under:
"11. It is true that the First Proviso to Section 34(1) of the 2016 Act and the Proviso to Rule 11 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, states that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time. But while analyzing the intention behind granting reservation in promotion as that in the case of appointment in the entry cadre, it is only to be held that the Government concerned cannot fix the Roster for granting reservation in promotion at their whims and fancies, so as to nullify the benefit of a reservation in promotion. The purpose behind fixation of the Roster points for reservation at 1, 26, 51 and 76 is clear from office memorandum.
12. As per the provisions, in the event of non-availability of candidates even in the extended zone, the reservation can be exchanged so that post can be filled by a person with other category of disability, if possible. If it is not possible to fill up the post by reservation, the post may be filled by a person other than a person with disability and the reservation shall be carried forward for upto three subsequent recruitment years, whereafter it shall lapse.
13. The OM dated 17.05.2022 issued by DoP&T on the subject of reservation in promotion to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWBDs) and the key feature dealt in paragraph 9 is to the extent of effecting reservation and maintenance of roster as under:
"9.1 Every Government establishment shall maintain, cadre-wise and group wise, a separate 100-point vacancy-based reservation roster/register, as in the case of direct recruitment for determining/ effecting reservation for the PwBDs inpromotion. There will be separate roster register, in each cadre in Group 'C°, Group 'B' and Group 'A', wherever reservation in promotion for PwBD is applicable. There shall be separate roster/register for promotion and direct recruitment.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 6 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 9.2. Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points 1st Block - Point No. 01 to point No. 25 2nd Block - Point Ng. 26 to point Ne. 50 3rd Block - Point No. 51 to point No. 75 4th Block - Point No. 76 to point No.100. 9.3 Points 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked for PwBDs - one point each for category under (a), (b), (c) of Para 2.2 above, respectively, and one point for category (d) and (c) conjointly. The Head of the establishment shall ensure that vacancies identified at SI. No. 1, 26, 51 and 76 are earmarked for the respective categories of the PwBD. However, the Head of the Department shall decide the placement of the selected candidate in the roster/register. In other words, the category to be appointed first will be decided by the Head of the Department based on the functional requirement.
9.4 All the vacancies in each recruitment year in a grade, arising irrespective of vacancies reserved for PwBDs, shall be entered in the relevant roster. If the vacancy falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the PwBD, or if the Head of the Department feels that it is not possible to fill up that post by the PwBDs for any other reason, to be recorded in writing, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 25 shall be treated as reserved for the PwBD and filled, as such.
9.5 Likewise, one vacancy out of the total vacancies falling at points from 26 to 50 or from 51 to 75 or from 76 to 100 shall have to be filled by the PwBDs. The purpose of keeping points 1, 26, 51 and 76 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy by the PwBD candidate of the category for which the post is earmarked. 9.6 There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 01 to 25 is found suitable for any category of the PwBD. In that case, two vacancies from 26 to 50 shall be filled from amongst the PwBDs. If the vacancies from 26 to 50 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies in the third block 51 to 75 shall be filledas reserved. This means that if no vacancy can be RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 7 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 reserved in particular block, it shall be carried over to the next block. block, it shall be carried over to the next block. 9.7 After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. 9.8 If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block (say 25 vacancies, including PwBD quota, if any) or two (say 50 vacancies, including the quota, if any), the category of the PwBDs should be accommodated as per the roster points. However, in case, the said vacancy is not identified for the respective category of disability, the Head of the Department shall decide the category on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific category in the grade/post concerned, etc.
14. On thorough and detailed analysis of the entire matter we find that the respondents did not produce or state the details of the sanctioned strength in the grade of APO/AWO out of which how many posts are to be reserved under which category. However, it has fairly been admitted that as per the roster register, point Nos. 1, 26, 51 and 76 falls under the PwBD category under 100 point vacancy based roster. When after the DoP&T OM and RBE referred to above, the present Notification is the first notification for filling up of one post, this post ought to have been notified for PwBD instead of UR. The DoP&T OM dated 17.05.2022, it has been provided that against the post identified for each disability, 1% each shall be reserved for PwBD and the category of disability has also been provided therein on (a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e) basis. It has also been provided therein that the category to be appointed first will be decided by the Head of Department based on the functional requirement. The stand of the respondents is that this being a single post, no reservation is applicable is not accepted because principle of reservation is applied on the basis of the total sanctioned strength and not on vacancy based. It is not the case of the Respondents that the post in question cannot be manned by other than PwBD candidate other than category of blindness and Low Vision nor is it the case of Respondents no eligible candidate in other category under PwBD was available due to lack of eligibility criteria etc. The Rule making authority has consciously vested discretion with the Head of the Department to decide the category of PwBD meaning thereby that he can exercise the authority RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 8 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 for inter change to implement the Reservation principle set out by the Government.
15. In Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [(2017) 14 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, visualises a sea change and conceives of actualisation of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole gamut of benefit has been changed for the better, and the responsibilities of many have been encompassed. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become a distant dream.
16. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 28.09.2021, in Civil Appeal No. 1567/2017 in the case of 'Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka' in Civil Appeal No. 1567/2017, DoP&T issued exhaustive instruction relating to reservation in promotion of PwBD category, in posts and services of Group A, B, C & D vide OM No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022 which OM was also circulted by the Railway Board for its implementation vide RBE No. 74/2022 dated 01.07.2022. In the said OM, it has specifically been provided that "Every Government establishment shall maintain, cadrewise and group-wise, a separate 100-point vacancy-
based reservation roster/register, as in the case of direct recruitment, for determining/effecting reservation for the PwBDs in promotion. There will be separate roster / register, in each cadre in Group 'C', Group 'B' and Group 'A', wherever reservation in promotion for PwBD is applicable. There shall be separate roster/register for promotion and direct recruitment". Further, it has been provided that "Points 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked for PwBDs - one point each for category under (a), (b), (c) of Para 2.2 above, respectively, and one point for category (d) and (e) conjointly. The Head of the establishment shall ensure that vacancies identified at SI. No. l, 26, 51 and 76 are earmarked for the respective categories of the PwBD". The aforesaid OM is statutory in nature and, thus, there is no scope on the part of the authority to deviate from the aforesaid provision. In the counter there is no denial that the post in question was not the 1st post in 100 point roster. It is RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 9 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 not also the case of the Respondents that the post cannot be managed except Blindness and Low Vision disability employee. No justification has also been given in the counter, as to why the authority did not exercise his option for filling up of the said post by any other categories of PwBD if particular category of PwBD employee is not available. In the said circumstances, without examining the above aspects of the matter, straightaway inviting application from UR candidate and filling up the same meanwhile seems action to be in violation of the policy of reservation for PwBD candidates and in law.
17. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a complete failure on the part of the Respondents to pay due regards to the reservation principles set out in the Act and Rules made there under, as discussed above. Hence, the advertisement dated 23.11.2022 inviting application for 01 post under 100 reservation roster from UR candidate is absolutely contrary to Act, Rules and Law. Hence, the notification/advertisement dated 23.11.2022 is hereby quashed and, as a consequence, the appointment of the UR candidate is held to be held void ab initio and, is, accordingly, quashed. Respondents are directed to take further step in the matter in accordance with Act and Rules discussed above for filling up of the vacancy by exercising the discretion conferred under rules by PwBD under Locomotor disabled employee since, according to the respondents, no eligible PwBD category under Blindness and Low vision is/was available. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2. Sri Penta Radhakrishna [Resp. No. 4 in the OA/applicant in this RA] approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa against the order of this Bench dated 07.01.2026 in OA 117/2023 vide W.P(C) No. 7260/2026, which was disposed of on 17.03.2026 with observation as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 10 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 "This Petition seeks to lay a challenge to the Tribunal's order dated 07.01.2026, whereby O.A. No.117 of 2023 filed by private Opposite Parties in this case having been favoured, the selection and appointment of the Petitioner has been set at naught coupled with a direction to go for recruitment afresh.
2. Both the sides having argued the matter vociferously for some time, graciously agree with our suggestion that Petitioner be permitted to present a review Petition before the Tribunal on the grounds and documents now pressed into service before us within a period of fifteen (15) days and the Tribunal shall take a call on the review in contemplation, preferably within an outer limit of three (3) months and further that, till such call is taken, the Petitioner's position shall not be disturbed. All contentions are kept open. Ordered accordingly.
Hence, Sri Penta Radhakrishna [Resp. No. 4 in the OA/applicant in this RA] filed this Review Application on 01.04.2026 seeking review of the order of this Bench dated 07.01.2026 in OA 117/2023 by stating as under:
"2. That however, looking into peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case vis a vis the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the present review needs to be considered in merit taking into account the relevant rules prevailing at the time of passing the final order in OA. Moreover, while considering the writ petition filed against the final order dated 07.01.2026, passed in OA No.117/2023, the Hon'ble High Court also noticed that so many rules and circulars are there which guiding the selection of Gr.B posts in Railway and so may Instructions have been issued by the Railway Board from time to time in respect of the issue as to how the reservations is to be effected while making the selection of posts. Since, all such rules/instructions have not been taken into consideration while taking the decision due to inadvertence of due to non-submission of same in the proceeding, the Hon'ble Court has suggested suo moto to file the review application before this Hon'ble Tribunal bringing all such rules/circulars to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal for fresh consideration. The RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 11 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 present petitioner also brought it to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that even if notice has been issued to him but he failed to appear in the matter believing that the Railway will contest the matter by way of submitting all such relevant documents before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3. That the present case is a glaring example of Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, at the 1st instance, the Hon'ble High Court has interfered in the matter and has been pleased to suggest the present petitioner to file the review application within a period of one month from the date of their order. Hence, the present review is presented against the final order of the Hon'ble Tribunal which has been passed in a mistaken way without appreciating the rules quoted in the order itself.
4. That further here to, while deciding the matter, the correct facts were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal nor the documents are submitted. Hence, the present order was procured by the Applicants by way of suppression of facts. As per example, adhering the rules, the Railway Administration has added one post meant for the PwBD category in next selection i.e. against the notification issued vide notification dated 04.01.2024. However, none was selected against such notification for which the post again added with the next notification issued on 07.011.2024. As result, one person has already promoted during pendency of the Original Application as against the notification dated 07.11.2024. In the event, present post is also added or allotted to the PwBD category, it will make unjust enrichment and would violate the reservation rules itself. In present situation also, it would be next to impossible to cancel the selection of Shri Koka Manoj and to revert him back to his earlier post who was promoted as against the 2024 selection notification issued on 07.11.2024. This fact was suppressed by the applicants till the final decision is taken in the matter without highlighting the same by way of submitting documents. Further, the person concerned who will suffer in the event his selection is cancelled has not been also added as party to the OA.
5. That while taking decision, the Hon'ble Tribunal has relied on the version of the applicants those who have filed the PIL in the shape of OA which was not at maintainable even. It has been also suppressed that the person representing all the applicants (Applicant No.12) before this Hon'ble Tribunal was only eligible by the time notification was issued and she has also participated RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 12 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 in the selection process but failed. Neither in the pleadings nor in the argument, this fact was brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal for consideration and to take a decision whether ineligible candidates have any right to challenge any selection and whether any person after participate in the selection and after failing in it has any right to question the selection process.
6. That from the aforesaid facts, it became clear that the applicants have procured the order applying due suppression of facts and misrepresenting or taking the assistance of misleading facts. Had the applicants brought it to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal one Koka Manoj is being selected against the reserve point in the next selection, the Hon'ble might have taken into consideration this aspect and the result would have been different as because, the present order making the reserve candidates unjust enrichment. Further, what would be the fate of Koka Manoj in the event the present order is implemented and he would suffer even if he has not been added as party to the proceeding spite of the fact that his selection is much prior to the decision taken in the OA on 07.01.2026.
7. That since the glaring mistake apparent from the face of the order sought to be reviewed due to suppression of facts as well as taking assistance of misleading facts, the order dated 07.01.2026, passed in OA No.117/2023 needs to be reviewed.
8. That the findings so also the outcome arrived at by the Hon'ble Tribunal needs to be reviewed due to the following reasons;
(A) For that the mistake is apparent from the face of records, hence, same needs to be corrected reviewing the order dtd. 07.01.2026. Further, the observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the selection notification issued on 23.11.2022 is contrary to the reservation rules for which same is quashed and as consequence the selection of the review petitioner is also quashed cannot be treated as appropriate and justifiable in view of suppression of facts and non-adherence of statutory rules. (B) For that when the Hon'ble Tribunal has taken the decision, provisions of the OM dated 17.05.2022 has been quoted in Para-13 of the Order. But, in a surprise manner, the provisions of such OM has not been taken into consideration while taking the decisions and coming to a final conclusion. Hence, order needs to be reviewed.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 13 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 (C) For that while passing the final order, the basic points that whether the provisions relating to the reservations and clarifications with regard to the reservations circulated under the authority of DoP&T are to be applied to the Railway or not has been considered at all. No endeavor has been made to find out whether any separate rules/provisions are available under the Railway guiding the reservations and filling up the roster points in promotional posts. Since, it has been specified that where notification is issued for single promotional post, even if the same is coming within the reserve points, no reservation would be made and the point of reservation is to be carried forward to be filled up in next selection. Since, in present case, the Railway has adopted and followed the specific provisions available under the Railway Rules, no mistake is there in the notification issued in 2022. Hence, the order without looking into the express provisions of Railway requires to be reviewed.
9. That even if the Hon'ble Tribunal passed the order-basing on the documents/rules and pleadings available at the time of hearing of the matter, but, it is specific stand of the review petitioner that the Applicants in the OA has succeeded as because they misleaded the Hon'ble Tribunal without submitting the relevant rules & Procedures of the Railway and suppressing the material facts from the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal for which the order needs to be reviewed."
3. This RA has placed, in terms of Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and the Notification dated 18th February, 1992 issued by Hon'ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5, 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985, for consideration on circulation by the Registry. We have examined the stand taken in this RA and documents placed in support thereof with the records and the order which is sought to be reviewed by this Bench RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 14 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 with due regard to the order dated 17.03.2026 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 7260/2026 so also the provision made under Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and law on the subject.
4. Review applicant filed Writ Petition annexing DoP&T OM dated 23.02.2023, which is on the subject of reservation in promotion to PwBDs. This Bench had extensively dealt with regard to reservation of PwBD candidate for promotion to the post, in question, taking note of RBE No. 58/2001, RBE No. 97/2022, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, OM dated 17.05.2022 to ensure effective reservation for PwBD for promotion from Group-C to Group-B posts, relevant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the subsequently notification issued on 04.01.2024. Secondly, he mentions about the Board's letter dated 13.03.2023, which was issued with reference to the Board's letter dated 18.08.2022 (RBE 97/2022). From the order under review, it is quite clear that this Bench has also taken note of the said letter while passing the order. Thirdly, with regard to non- consideration of RBE 58/2001, we find that official respondents in the OA had already taken the stand that the vacancy of APO/AWO for the year 2023-24 was assessed as 01 (UR) in accordance with para 2 of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 15 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 RBE 58/2001 and this Bench after dealing with the same had passed the order. While dealing with the matter, the Bench also took note of vacancy position for the last 10 years. Next objection of the review applicant that Respondent No.12 in the OA, Smt. Renubala Sahoo, had participated in the selection but could not qualify and this fact was not brought before the Bench, the order dated 07.01.2026 under review clearly reflects that this Bench, having found that there was complete failure on the part of the official respondents to pay due regard to the reservation principles, quashed the notification/advertisement dated 23.11.2022 and directed for taking further step for filling up of the vacancy, in question, in accordance with Rules by the PwBD under Locomotor disabled employee. Hence, these grounds of the review applicant are overruled.
5. Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs V.Narayana Reddy and others, (2022) Live law (SC) 658, to state that this case falls within the scope and ambit of the ingredients fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case and, therefore, the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 16 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 order needs to be reviewed. The relevant portion of the decision relied on by the Review Applicant in this RA is extracted below:
"19. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others 24, this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason"
has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: -
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 17 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
6. Notably, that, a party, who knowingly ignores an opportunity to represent their interests (by not filing a counter or appearing before the court) cannot later claim they were denied a fair hearing or seek to reopen the case through a review petition. The basic principle of 'estoppel' is that, when a person is made as a party to a lis but did not participate despite due opportunity, the said party waives/abandons his right to raise his voice against the final verdict by way of seeking review that too without giving fullest justification for non-appearance despite due notice. In the instant case, notice was issued to the review applicant/Resp. No.4 in the OA and, despite adequate opportunity, he choose himself not to participate. It is not the case of the applicant in this RA that he did not participate in the proceeding since no notice was received by him nor it is his case that for any such acceptable grounds he remained away from participating in the proceeding before this Bench. His stand in paragraph 2 of the RA is that though he got the notice but he failed to appear in the matter believing that the Railway RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 18 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 will contest the matter by way of submitting all such relevant documents before this Tribunal. In fact, Railway contested the matter by producing all relevant documents and, this Bench, after taking note of the same, reached the final conclusion. Be that as it may, such 'belief' of the review applicant cannot give him any room to seek review keeping aside the norms and procedure warranting exercise of Power of Review. Thus, this submission is hardly of any ground to exercise the power of review especially when the review applicant deliberately failed to participate in the proceeding. But, with due regards to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, regardless of the points noted above, we have examined the stand point of the review applicant. According to the review applicant, there is glaring example of mistake or error apparent on the face of record, for which review of the order is warranted, is nothing but a mere carelessness, bald and lunatic statement without spelling out pin-pointedly what are those errors/mistakes. Similar is the situation in so far as statement that order was passed in a mistaken way without appreciating the rules quoted in the order itself and, even if it is so, passing order without RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 19 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 appreciating rules is hardly of any matter for exercising the power of review as ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. It is stated that the order was procured by the original applicants by way of suppression of facts in as much as the Railway Administration has added one post meant for the PwBD category in next selection i.e. against the notification issued vide notification dated 04.01.2024. However, none was selected against such notification for which the post was again added with the next notification issued on 07.011.2024. As a result, one person has already been promoted during pendency of the Original Application as against the notification dated 07.11.2024. In the event, present post is also added or allotted to the PwBD category, it will make unjust enrichment and would violate the reservation rules itself. In present situation also, it would be next to impossible to cancel the selection of Shri Koka Manoj and to revert him back to his earlier post who was promoted as against the 2024 selection notification issued on 07.11.2024. Further, the person concerned who will suffer in the event his selection is cancelled has also not been added as party to the OA. One of the applicants appeared at the selection but failed. The Review Applicant misread the order of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 20 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 this Bench. This Bench reached the conclusion after taking note of the points reflected above. Further, the review applicant is not the caretaker or caregiver of the interest of Shri Koka Manoj nor it can be a ground to seek review of the order. Also, it is not the case of the review applicant that he sought review of the order after discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed by this Bench. Hence, none of the grounds raised in support of exercise of power of review by this Bench comes within the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
8. Add to the above, it may be noted that reviewing of a final order is considered a "serious step" in judicial proceedings, often likened to reopening a settled matter, and therefore requires extreme care and caution by the courts. A review is not a routine procedure and is only permissible when a glaring omission, patent mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record has crept in due to judicial fallibility. The core purpose of restrictive review rules is to uphold the principle of finality, which is central to the rule of law. A decision being "erroneous on merits" is not a sufficient ground for review; it must be an error on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 21 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 face of the record. An erroneous decision is corrected by a higher forum, not through review. In this regard, reliance needs to be placed on a few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and, they are as under:
9. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Hon'ble Apex Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his home-stead. The said appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with the following observations:
"3 ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 22 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
10. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
11. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, it was held that "'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."
12. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, it was held that an error that is not self- evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 23 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review.
13. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Hon'ble Apex Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
14. In Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 24 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."
15. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus:
"21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional 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 earlier."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 25 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026
16. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible.
17. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 896, it was held that power of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.
18. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, it has been observed and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. A review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 26 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be "mistake or error apparent on the face of record". In para 22 to 35 it is observed and held as under:
"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires 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 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
19. In State of Haryana Vs. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review."
20. In the case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and as under:
"14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 it was held that:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 27 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 "8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:
''It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
21. From the discussions made above, it is no more res integra that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:05:09 +05'30' 28 R.A.No. 260/00011 of 2026 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise. Thus, from the examination of points noted above, even going by the decision relied on by the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that this case does not fall within the scope and ambit of the ingredients set forth by the Hon'ble Apex Court for exercising the power of review. Therefore, this RA, from all counts, deserves to be dismissed on circulation and, it is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.
22. Registry is directed to hand over a copy of this order to the review applicant and sent by post to the railway respondents and one of the applicants in the OA. Copy of this order be also uploaded in the official website.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:05:09 +05'30'