Lt Col Bharat Singh, Sena Medal vs Union Of India & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 03.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 16.07.2026
+ REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024
LT COL BHARAT SINGH,
SENA MEDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC
with Ms. Vidhi Gupta,
Ms. Ayushi Srivastava,
Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr.
Kushagra Malik, Mr.
Ujjwal Tyagi, along with
Maj. Anish Murlidhar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
REVIEW PET. 277/2026
1. The present Review Petition has been preferred under Section
114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter “ CPC ”) seeking review of the judgment dated
16.05.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 14626/2024, whereby the
writ petition preferred by the Petitioner/Lt. Col. Bharat Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 1 of 10

challenging the validity his Confidential Reports for the years 2010
and 2011, was dismissed.
2. Vide the above judgment under review, this Court, while
keeping in mind the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, upheld the Judgment dated
26.07.2024 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal while
observing that when the Tribunal, consisting of a panel of domain
experts, has adopted a plausible view after considering the rival
contentions and the material on record, this Court, in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence or
substitute its own conclusions merely because another view is
possible. The core observations and reasoning can be summarized as
under: -
a) This Court rejected the preliminary objection of
maintainability and decided the same in favour of the
Petitioner.
b) On merits, with respect to the validity of the CRs for the
years 2010 this Court accepted the learned Tribunal's
reasoning that the Petitioner himself had filled the details and
authenticated the CR forms; he himself certified his
appointments and signed the service records; allegations of
forgery/false signatures were not established; though he had
filed Non-statutory Complaints even before his non-
empanelment he had never challenged the CRs of 2010 and
has raised the objections only after his non-empanelment to
the Rank of Colonel.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 2 of 10

c) With respect to the CR for the year 2011, this Court
concurred with the observations of the learned Tribunal that
the 90-day physical service requirement stood satisfied; and
even if the report became a " one-man report ", that by itself
did not invalidate the CR .
d) As regards the prayer of consequential relief of
promotion, this Court discussed the settled principle that
comparative merit and CR assessment lie within the domain
of expert military authorities, and opined that since the
Petitioner had already been considered multiple times and
was not selected and no mala fides or arbitrariness were
shown, judicial interference was unwarranted.
e) Thus, emphasising that Article 226 is supervisory and not
appellate jurisdiction and the Tribunal had taken a plausible
view based on the record, this Court found no grounds to
interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
3. Now, the Review Petitioner, appearing in person, has urged that
the judgment under review warrants reconsideration on the ground
that this Court has erred in holding the CRs for the year 2010 valid
when the same was violative of Para 16(c) of Army Order
45/2001/MS as the appointments reflected in the relevant records
(namely the appointment against which the Petitioner was posted; the
appointment for which the CRs were initiated and the appointment
reflected in IAFF-3008) did not correspond with each other.
4. It is further submitted that this Court has erred in holding that
the Petitioner did not challenge the appointment reflected in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 3 of 10

Paramount Card. The same reflected the Petitioner as " Coy 2IC "
during the relevant tenure and the observation that the petitioner had
accepted the appointment reflected therein is factually incorrect.
5. It is further submitted that this Court has erred in relying upon
the signatures of the Petitioner to hold that the Petitioner himself had
accepted the appointments in the above-mentioned CRs and the
corresponding documents, while ignoring that on those dates on which
the signatures have been obtained, the Petitioner was either on
sanctioned leave or attending an official course.
6. It is further urged that this Court has erred in not considering
that the Petitioner was well within his rights to challenge the technical
validity of the CRs even after promulgation of the Selection Board
Results.
7. It is further submitted that no specific findings with respect to
the Petitioner's submission regarding violation of Para 12 of the
" Important Instructions " contained in the prescribed CR Form of year
2011 with respect to the SRO endorsement to avoid a one-man report,
have been given.
8. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposes the present petition
and submits that no error apparent on the face of record has been
demonstrated. This Court, vide the detailed judgement under review
has considered the material on record and passed a reasoned
judgment, and the present review petition is liable to be dismissed as
the same seeks re-appreciation of facts and reconsideration of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 4 of 10

same issues already examined which is impermissible under review
jurisdiction.
9. We have considered the submissions advanced.
10. At the outset, it is well settled that the power of review is an
extremely limited jurisdiction. A review proceeding cannot be equated
with an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to correction of “an error
apparent on the face of the record” or other grounds specifically
recognised therein. Reference may be made to the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury : (1995) 1 SCC 170, wherein it was held as under: -
“ 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 of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4
SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047] , speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent
observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
“It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State
of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] , 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 5 of 10

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.”
9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has
clearly observed that they were entertaining the review
petition only on the ground of error apparent on the
face of the record and not on any other ground . So far
as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view
that an error apparent on the face of record must be
such an error which must strike one on mere looking
at the record and would not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to
the observations of this Court in the case
of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137 : (1960) 1
SCR 890] wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the
Court has made the following observations in
connection with an error apparent on the face of the
record:
“ An error which has to be established by a long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged
error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it
has to be established, by lengthy and complicated
arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of
certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the
superior court to issue such a writ. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi :1997
(8) SCC 715 while elaborating the scope of review under Order
XLVII Rule 1, held as under:
“9. 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 the jurisdiction under Order 47,
Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 6 of 10

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".”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Similar observations were made in Lily Thomas v. Union of
India , (2000) 6 SCC 224 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
delineating the scope of power of review, observed as under: -
"56. Such powers be exercised within the limits of the
can
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review
cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for
review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further
petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of
following the practice of the binding nature of the larger
Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of
coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed
and practised."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, it is no more res-integra that this Court cannot rehear the
matter or undertake a fresh appreciation of the pleadings, evidence or
submissions merely because another view is possible. Mere repetition
of arguments already advanced or an attempt to persuade the Court to
take a different view on the same material cannot constitute a ground
for review.
14. Examined in the aforesaid light, we find that the grounds
disclosed in the review petition does not disclose any error apparent
on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
The contentions sought to be urged by the Review Petitioner regarding
the technical validity of the Confidential Reports, applicability and
interpretation of the relevant provisions of Army Order 45/2001/MS,
the Paramount Card, the documentary material relied upon by him, the
alleged invalidity of the Confidential Reports on account of
procedural irregularities, and the effect thereof on his promotion, are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 7 of 10

arguments on merits and all arise out of the very same controversy
which formed the subject matter of adjudication in the writ petition.
15. All the contentions have already been addressed in the
judgment under review. The Petitioner contends that this Court did not
specifically deal with Para 16(c) of Army Order 45/2001/MS,
however, the challenge to the validity of the CRs of 2010 on the basis
of the Petitioner's appointment, the entries made in the CRs, the
Paramount Card and the contemporaneous service records was
considered by this Court in paragraphs 35 to 41 of the judgment
under review. This Court had accepted the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal that the Petitioner had himself authenticated the
relevant records and had failed to establish any illegality warranting
interference. Merely because the Petitioner desires a separate or more
elaborate discussion on Para 16(c) does not constitute an error
apparent on the face of the record.
16. Similarly, the contention regarding the Paramount Card also
stands considered in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment under
review, wherein this Court examined the Petitioner's own
authentication of the relevant service records, including the Paramount
Card, while affirming the findings returned by the learned Tribunal.
The contention regarding his alleged absence from the Unit on the
dates of the signatures and the evidentiary value of the documents
relied upon by the Respondents also stood considered in paragraph
39 and 40 of the judgment under review. This Court, after considering
the material on record, found no reason to disbelieve the
contemporaneous official records and observed that the CRs cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 8 of 10

held technically invalid when there is no cogent evidence establishing
forgery of signatures. The present submission again merely seeks re-
appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in review
proceedings.
17. The submission that the Petitioner was entitled to challenge the
Confidential Reports after declaration of the Selection Board results
also does not merit acceptance. The reasoning adopted by this Court
while considering the Petitioner's conduct, including the fact that no
contemporaneous objection had been raised despite authentication of
the relevant records, is reflected in paragraph 41 of the judgment
under review. Though a challenge to the validity of the Confidential
Reports may be raised at a subsequent stage, this Court did not find
any infirmity in the view adopted by the learned Tribunal that the
Petitioner had, at the time of holding the relevant appointments and
authenticating the contemporaneous records though availed the
authority and benefits/authority attached thereto, but never questioned
the validity of the Confidential Reports and sought to challenge them
only after he was not empanelled for promotion to the rank of
Colonel. Additionally, it is with respect to the relief of promotion that
this Court opined that comparative merit/assessment/empanelment lie
within the domain of expert military authorities, and since the
Petitioner had already been considered multiple times and rejected,
judicial interference was unwarranted.
18. Even the contention regarding SRO endorsement has been
addressed in paragraph 44 of the judgment. This Court proceeded on
the broader premise that the findings returned by the learned Armed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 9 of 10

Forces Tribunal on the validity of the Confidential Reports constituted
a plausible view.
19. It emerges that the contentions essentially invite this Court to
re-examine the merits and findings returned in the judgment under
review by undertaking a fresh consideration of the statutory
provisions, the documents placed on record and the rival contentions
on merits. Such an exercise falls squarely within the domain of
appellate jurisdiction and is wholly impermissible in review
proceedings.
20. Any dissatisfaction with the reasoning adopted by the Court
or the extent of discussion on a particular aspect cannot be a ground
for review. Merely because the Review Petitioner seeks a different
interpretation of the applicable Army Orders or contends that certain
submissions deserved more elaborate consideration cannot be termed
as an error apparent or a self-evident error or a ground for review.
21. Thus, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the
record or any other ground falling within the parameters of Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC, we find no merit in the present Review Petition.
22. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
JULY 16, 2026
jan
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:16.07.2026
17:01:50
REVIEW PET. 277/2026 in W.P.(C) 14626/2024 Page 10 of 10