A non-material factual error may be corrected on review without reopening the merits.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 September 2025 dismissing his Original Application.

He argued that the Railway Board’s letter dated 27 March 2015 could not govern a selection notified on 13 June 2013, and that earlier instructions concerning the “Best Amongst Failures” benefit applied.

He also asserted that the original order wrongly stated that he had retired, when he remained in service.

The respondents opposed review, contending that the application sought a reappraisal of issues already decided.

Whether the applicant established a recognised ground for reviewing the order dated 10 September 2025, including an apparent error concerning the applicable Railway Board instructions.

Whether the statement in the original order that the applicant had retired, despite his continuing in service, warranted review or affected the substantive decision.

Review jurisdiction is limited and is not an appeal in disguise.

It may be exercised for discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous sufficient ground; it cannot be used to obtain a rehearing or a different appraisal of material already considered.

Relying on Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372; Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. v. Motilal (Dead) through LRs., (2009) 4 SCC 665; and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Tribunal reiterated that disagreement with the decision, or the possibility of another view, is not by itself a ground for review.

The Tribunal held that the arguments about the 2015 letter, the earlier instructions, and the “Best Amongst Failures” benefit required reconsideration of the interpretation and applicability of material already before it in the Original Application.

They therefore did not establish an apparent error or new evidence, and could not be revisited in review.

By contrast, the applicant’s continuing service was undisputed, making the original order’s statement that he had retired factually incorrect.

However, the applicant did not show that this mistake affected the adjudication of the substantive dispute, so it justified correction only—not recall or reconsideration of the order.

It disposed of the Review Application by deleting paragraph 13 of the order dated 10 September 2025, which stated that the applicant had retired; the remaining findings and conclusions were left undisturbed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.