CAT Rejects Review Against Patent Examiners’ 2021 Seniority Challenge, Finding Delay Had Already Been Condoned

The original applicants challenged seniority lists dated 24 March 2022, 1 January 2023 and 17 March 2025, seeking, among other reliefs, implementation of a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal.

In M.A. No. 2979/2025, the Tribunal condoned delay in filing the O.A. by order dated 13 April 2026, noting that the challenge concerned seniority lists of 2021, 2023 and 2025 and referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance on delay in challenging seniority lists.

The original respondents 3–7 then sought review of an order dated 31 August 2026, which had allowed an amendment introducing a challenge to the seniority list dated 23 April 2021.

They argued that the amendment had been allowed without first deciding a separate application seeking condonation of delay in bringing that challenge.

1. Whether the order dated 31 August 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, because it allowed an amendment challenging the seniority list dated 23 April 2021 without separately deciding the alleged delay in making that challenge.

2. Whether the review applicants could reopen the issue of delay after the Tribunal had already considered and condoned delay in filing the O.A.

Under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record; an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not apparent, and review cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision or reargue the matter.

The Tribunal relied on Subhash v. State of Maharashtra (citation as reproduced in the order: “ACR 2002 SC 2537”) and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735.

It also referred to Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, as discussed in the earlier order: a seniority list ordinarily should not be disturbed after remaining unchallenged for three to four years, absent a satisfactory explanation for delay.

The Tribunal found that the objection concerning the 2021 seniority list and delay had already been raised and considered when it decided M.A. No. 2979/2025.

In that proceeding, the Tribunal had noted the relevant seniority lists and condoned delay in filing the O.A.

It therefore treated the review application as an attempt to reopen an issue already decided, rather than as identifying a self-evident error in the amendment order.

Applying the narrow review standard, it concluded that the applicants’ objection did not establish an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference.

It dismissed R.A. No. 117/2026, with no order as to costs.