A party cannot seek review after consenting to directions, absent an error apparent on the record.

Ajay Kumar had filed OA No.1257/2026 challenging his declaration as medically unfit for appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds, based on the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Examination (RME).

He sought a fresh examination by an independent Medical Board comprising specialists in medicine, dermatology and ophthalmology, and consequential appointment benefits.

The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage, directing the respondents to constitute a specialist Medical Board from Central Government hospitals in New Delhi, keep one compassionate-appointment post vacant, and take a decision on appointment after receiving the Board’s report.

The respondents’ counsel had stated, on instructions, that the respondents had no objection to such an independent examination because the case concerned compassionate appointment, while requesting that the order not be treated as a precedent in other recruitment cases.

The respondents thereafter filed the present Review Application, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a 10-day delay, contending that they had not been given a proper opportunity to present their objections and seeking dismissal of the original OA on additional grounds.

Whether the 10-day delay in filing the Review Application should be condoned.

Whether the respondents had established an apparent error on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting review of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 April 2026.

Whether the respondents could seek dismissal of the original OA at the review stage after their counsel had expressly consented to the constitution of an independent Medical Board in the compassionate-appointment case.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal or for introducing a new case; review is justified only where there is an apparent error on the face of the record or another legally recognised ground for review.

A party is ordinarily bound by the position or concession taken by its counsel on instructions before the Tribunal, particularly where an order has been passed on that basis.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a direction issued in the peculiar facts of a compassionate-appointment case need not operate as a precedent for all recruitment cases.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order; the controlling principle was that the Review Applicants had to demonstrate an apparent error in the original order.

The delay application was allowed because the reasons stated were considered sufficient, and the 10-day delay was condoned.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that its original direction was based on the respondents’ informed statement, made on instructions, that they had no objection to a fresh independent medical examination in this particular compassionate-appointment case.

The respondents’ attempt in review to adopt a contrary position, rely on additional judgments, and seek dismissal of the OA amounted to a change of stand rather than identification of any error apparent on the face of the record.

Since the original order expressly recorded that no opinion had been expressed on the merits of the applicant’s medical fitness and confined the relief to a fresh specialist examination, the Tribunal found no factual or legal error warranting review.

The Review Application was dismissed by circulation because the Review Applicants failed to show any apparent error on the face of the record or other ground for review.

The directions in the original order—constitution of a specialist Medical Board, keeping one compassionate-appointment post vacant, and taking an appointment decision based on the Board’s report—therefore remained operative.

No order as to costs was made.