Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Makwana Mukeshbhai Laxmanbhai vs M/O Railways on 13 March, 2026
::1 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361
361/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Review Application No.08 of 2025
in
O.A. No.361
361/2017
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble
ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1).. Makwana Mukeshbhai Laxmanbhai,
Aged about 39 years, Gender Male,
Residing at:D-19,Amarnagar,
19,Amarnagar,
Navayard,D Cabin,
Navayard,D-
Vadodara
Vadodara-390 024
(Sr.No.1 in OA).
2). Makwana Jigneshkumar Manubhai,
Aged about 39 years,
Gender Male, Residing at B-18,
18,
Shree Dharshan Society-2
T.P.13,Chhanijakatnaka,Vadodara
T.P.13,Chhanijakatnaka,Vadodara-24
(Sr.No.5 in OA).
3). Parmar Sachinbhai Kantibhai,
Aged about 32, Gender Male,
Residing at:G-20,
Amarnagar,Navayard,
Vadodara-390 024.
(Sr.No.5 in OA).4).
OA).
4). Prajapati Jitendrakumar Ramanbhai,
Aged about 33 years,
Gender Male, Residing at:
A-4, Surajpark Society,
Kathwada Road,Naroda,
Ahmedabad-382 345
(Sr.No.8 in OA)
5). Prajapati Sunil Dahyabhai
Aged about 33 years,
Gender Male,
Residing at: Virpur-360 380
(Sr.No.10 in OA).
2026.03.27
SEEMA
11:08:10+
SANTHOSH
05'30'
::2 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361
361/2025
6). Sheikh Jafarali
Musabhai,
Aged about 33 years,
Gender Male,
Residingat: Murad Saiyad Ni Chal,
Opp. Mahakali Mandir, Sahibug,
Ahmedabad.-380 004.
(Sr. No. 17 in OA)
7) Sheikh Mujaffarali Musaali,
Aged about 31 years, Gender Male,
Residing at: 352/H, Sikandar Bakht Nagar
Opp. Santos nagar, Behrampura,
Ahmedabad -22.
(Sr. No. 20 in OA)
8) Solanki Hitesh Kumar Parshottambhai,
Aged about 40 years, Gender Male,
Residing at: D-19,
D 19, Amarnagar, D
D-Cabin,
Nr. Old Chhanijakatnaka,
Vadodara.
Vadodara.-390 024
(Sr. No. 22 in OA)
9) Parmar Sachin Rameshbhai,
Aged about 35 years, Gender Male,
Residing at: 4,
Tiwari Chal, Opp. Sant Joseph
seph School,
Chhani Road, Vadodara-390
Vadodara 024.
(Sr. No. 23 in OA)
10) Joby John Jacob Jhon,
Aged about 34 years, Gender Male,
Residing at: A-14-13,
A
Gokul Galaxy Residency,
Opp. Kathwada Lake,
Nr. S.P. King Road,
Kathwada
Kathwada-382 430.
(Sr. No. 24 in OA)
11) Prajapati Kiran Kumar Popatbhai,
Aged about 33 years,
Gender Male, Residing at: B/3,
Surajpark Society, Opp: Vyash Vadi,
Naroda, Khthwada Road,
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad-382 430
(Sr. No. 26 in OA)
12) Prajapati Hitesh Kumar Malaji,
Aged about
ab 33 years,
2026.03.27
SEEMA
11:08:10+
SANTHOSH
05'30'
::3 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361
361/2025
Gender Male,
Residin at: 136-Aksharpurshotam
Residing Aksharpurshotam Nagar
Odhan, Ring Road,
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad-382 415
(Sr. No. 27 in OA)
13) Prajapati Nitesh Malaji
Aged about 323 years,
Gender Male,
Residing at: 136-Akshar
136 Akshar Purshotam Nagar,
Odhan, Ring Road,
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad-382 415
(Sr. No. 28 in OA)
14) Dabode Vinaykumar Vijaybhai,
Aged about 35 years,
Gender Male, Residing at: B/87
B/87- Murlidhar Society,
Gebanshah Pir, Vatva Road,
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad-382 440.
(Sr. No. 30 in OA)
15) Rajput Lokendrasingh
Lokendras Surendrasingh,
Aged about 31 years,
Gender Male,
Residing at: 20- Somnathnagardas,
Chawl, Opp. UCO Bank,
Saraspur, Ahmedabad-380 018.
(Sr. No. 33 in OA)
16) Shaikh Aamirkhan Chhotekhan,
Aged about 34 years,
Gender Male,
Residing at: 25-Dwarkadhis
25 Dwarkadhis Mandir Ni Chali,
Rajpur, Gomtipur-
Gomtipur Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad-380 021
(Sr. No. 34 in OA)
17) Pal Sheshkumar Ramkumar,
Aged about 34 Years,
Gender Male, Residing at: 12/Krushanagar
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382
Ahmedabad 382 424.
(Sr. No. 38 in OA)
18) Chowdhari Pankajbhai Ishwarbhai,
Aged about 31 Years,
Gender Male, Residing at: Station Road,
Boriavi, Mahesana-384
Mahesana 435.
(Sr. No. 40 in OA) .......Applicants
(By Advocate Ms.S.S.Chaturvedi)
Versus
2026.03.27
SEEMA
11:08:10+
SANTHOSH
05'30'
::4 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361
361/2025
1) Union of India
(Notice to be served through the Secretary,
Ministry of Railways (Railway Board),
New Delhi.
2) The General Manager (Establishment)
Western Railway,
Headquarter Officer,
Old Station Building, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400 020.
O R D E R (By Circulation)
Per : Hon'ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
This Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicant (applicant in original lis)) seeking review of the Order dated 19.06.2025 passed in O.A No.361/2017 by this Tribunal, the operative part of the said Order reads as under:
under:-
"7.1 From mere perusal of the above Section 22 (i) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 it can be seen that vide parliament amendment the employer were authorized to formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of Apprenticeship training in his establishment. In compliance of the said Section 22 (i) ibid Act, the Railway Board has formulated its own policy for the direct recruitment to the posts/categories in Pay band-11 of Rs. 5200 5200-20200 having GP of Rs. 1800/- by giving preference to CCAAs only to the extent of 20 per cent of the available vacancies. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the counsel for the respondents that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents tto appoint CCAAs in the Railway establishment. It is also against the principle of open competition to the public employment if, the 100 per cent preference is given to the trained apprentices for appointment in the Group D service of the Railway establishment.
7.2 The argument of the counsel for the applicant is not accepted that while undergoing the training, the applicants have executed an indemnity bond which 2026.03.27 SEEMA 11:08:10+ SANTHOSH 05'30' ::5 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361 361/2025 made it obligatory on the part of the respondent authority to appoint the apprentices after suc successful completion of training.
8. Thus, the OA lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, shall stands disposed of. No order as to costs."
2. Learned counsel for the Review A Applicant pplicant stated in the Review Application that this Tribunal erred in not considering certain relevant and important aspect of the mat matter er and the relevant judgment cited by the applicants vide Documents Diary no.(E--filing no.) 637 of 2025 which has resulted in to dismissal of the original application, application, and hence the present review application is required to be preferred, so as to secure the ends of justice.
3. In para 7.1 of the Order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.06.2025 the Review Applicant contended that this Tribunal 19.06.2025, failed to observe that the applicants completed the apprenticeship in the year 2013 and 2014 (Page no.37 to 45 Annex.A/4 with the OA), whereas the Railway Board issued the memorandum vide RBE no. 71/2016 dated 21.06.2016. The said RBE applied from the prospective dates not the Railway ay retrospective effect. The applicant completed the apprenticeship in the year 2013 and 2014. Therefore, in the present case, the Review Applicant contended that the applicants should be absorbed by Administration according to the rule/policy issued RBE No. No.136/2004 136/2004 vide letter no.
E(MPP)2002/12/26/Vol. II dated 21.06.2004 (Annexure A/16 page no. 166) regarding "Engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentices as Substitute in Group 'D'.
4. The Review Applicant further contended that the RBE No.136/2004 36/2004 was withdrawn vide RBE No. No.34/2017 34/2017 dated 12.04.2017 .04.2017 it means that the RBE No. No.136/2004 136/2004 was applicable 2026.03.27 SEEMA 11:08:10+ SANTHOSH 05'30' ::6 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361 361/2025 up to 12.04.2017 and the applicant's case is required to be considered in accordance with the RBE No. considered No.136/2004.
5. The Review Applicant contended that this Tribu Tribunal nal failed to observe about the relief (B) "Direct the respondent authorities to absorb the applicants, who are CCAAs and are possessing the National Apprenticeship Certificate granted by NCVT, in the service of the respondent authorities on suitable posts posts."
6. It is also submitted by the Review Applicant that a as s per the order dated 22.08.2019/17.09.2019 passed in OA no. 060/00415/2018 by the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench (Page no. 222-230 230 filed by E-filing E filing no. 417/2025) para 12 page no. 229 of the compilation 3rd line mentioned that "so the position as exists in 2012-13 2012 13 has to be seen when litigation had been initiated and not in 2016-2017 2016 2017 when their claim was rejected. The changes rules or regulations cannot be applied to their case of the applicants applicants as it would be illegal per se."
7. We have carefully perused the pleadings available on record.
8. It is to be noted that the scope of review of an order passed by courts/Tribunal is very limited and the applicant cannot seek review for correction of th the e view taken earlier or for rehearing of the matter. The scope for Review Application is clearly defined in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, reported in in(2008) 8 SCC 612,the ,the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the "Tribunal can exercise the powers of a Civil Court in relation to matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section sub section (3) of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act including the power of reviewing its decision"
cision". By referring to the power of a Civil Court to review its judgment/decision under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid down the 2026.03.27 SEEMA 11:08:10+ SANTHOSH 05'30' ::7 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361 361/2025 principles subject to which the Tribunal can exercise the power of review.
review. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer para 28 of the said judgment which reads as under ::-
"(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 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted iin the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self 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 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 idence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
2026.03.27 SEEMA 11:08:10+ SANTHOSH 05'30' ::8 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361 361/2025 8.1 In another judgment passed in Union of India v/s Tarit Ranjan Das, reported in 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the order passed in Review Application held in paragraph 13 as under:
under:-
"The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application pplication was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reason contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing earing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with rev review petition as if it was hearing original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."
9. Bearing in mind the above dicta as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be seen that existence of an error on the face of the record is sine qua non for review of an order. It is not permissible for the Courts/Tribunal to hear the review application application to act as an Appellate Authority in respect of the original order by a fresh hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
10. So far as the prayers of the review applicant in this Review Application for seeking review of Order dated 19.06.2025, as noted above, for seeking review of order passed 19.06.2025, by this Tribunal dated 19.06.2025 is concerned, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records, as it is apparent from the order under review the observations and the directions 2026.03.27 SEEMA 11:08:10+ SANTHOSH 05'30' ::9 :: RA. No.08/2025 in O.A.No.361 361/2025 were recorded based on the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties.
11. In the above factual matrix of the ccase ase as recorded in the order under review, this Tribunal disposed of the said OA by granting liberty, as sought for, to file a comprehensive representation in the light of subsequent to passing of the impugned order dated 19.06.2025. T The learned counsel for or the applicant relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 08.05.2023 in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Sinha (supra), as there was no occasion for the applicant to claim the benefit of the said judgment at the time of submitting his representation before the respondents since the said judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 8.5.2023.
12. It is settled law that an error which is not self self-evident 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. Further, this court has no powers to sit in appeal over its decisions.
13. In view of the above, it is apparent that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for review either on account of existence of error on the face of the judgment or on account of discovery of new facts or new documents. Accordingly, we dismissed this Review Application on account of delay as well as being eing devoid of merit. Pending MAs if any also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV
2026.03.27
SEEMA
11:08:10+
SANTHOSH
05'30'