A review cannot correct an allegedly erroneous decision absent an error apparent on the record.

Ajit Kumar Jha sought review under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, of the Tribunal’s order dismissing his OA on 21 August 2026.

He contended that the order misstated the scope of his challenge to the DRM guidelines and posting orders, treated the DRMs as necessary parties, and failed to decide his case concerning the transitional shortlist year 2024 and eight vacancies.

The Tribunal considered whether these grounds disclosed a basis for review.

Whether the alleged errors in the Tribunal’s treatment of the applicant’s challenge and the parties to the OA constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

Whether the alleged failure to adjudicate the applicant’s case regarding the 2024 transitional shortlist and vacancies justified review of the original order

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 gives the Tribunal a review power analogous to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; review is confined to the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 and cannot be used to correct an alleged error that requires a process of reasoning or to re-argue the case.

In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735, the Supreme Court consolidated these principles, including that an erroneous decision is not reviewable merely because it is alleged to be wrong, and that review must be based on material available at the time of the original decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s contentions had already been considered in the original order, including his arguments in light of the DRM guidelines.

It regarded the review application as an attempt to re-argue those issues rather than to identify a self-evident error, qualifying new material, or another sufficient ground for review.

Applying the restricted review principles in Kamal Sengupta, it concluded that the asserted errors did not warrant reopening the original decision.

It rejected RA No. 114/2026 in circulation and made no order as to costs.