Doctrine of functus officio is inapplicable to executive recruitment functions when correcting tainted selection processes.

The applicants participated in a recruitment process for the post of Scientist ‘B’ (Forensic DNA).

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) declared the results on 06.09.2023 and recommended the applicants to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 15.09.2023

on 07.12.2023, the UPSC cancelled these results due to concerns regarding the conduct of an expert member, Dr. Arun Sharma, involved in the selection process

The applicants challenged this cancellation in OA No. 4051/2023, which the Tribunal dismissed on 23.12.2025

The applicants subsequently filed the present Review Application (RA) alongside a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation of a 32-day delay.

The applicants contended that the UPSC was barred by the doctrine of functus officio from reviewing its own recommendation and that the cancellation violated principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued

1. Whether the delay of 32 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned

2. Whether the UPSC was barred from cancelling the recommended results under the doctrine of functus officio

3. Whether the Tribunal’s order dated 23.12.2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review under the settled principles of review jurisdiction

the sine qua non for a review is an "error apparent on the face of the record"

the doctrine of functus officio is primarily applicable to the latter [quasi-judicial proceedings] to ensure the finality of adjudicatory decisions

recruiting bodies like the UPSC possess the inherent executive power to take corrective measures to maintain the sanctity of a recruitment process if misconduct is detected

The Tribunal first condoned the 32-day delay, accepting the justification that the applicants resided in different cities, making the collection of documents time-consuming

the grounds raised—including the doctrine of functus officio, the lack of a show-cause notice, and the absence of personal malpractice by the applicants—had already been pleaded and considered during the original OA proceedings

a Review Application is not a forum for re-arguing a case or seeking a second opinion; rather, it is limited to correcting glaring factual or legal errors

the UPSC's recruitment functions are executive, not quasi-judicial; therefore, the Commission remains competent to cancel a tainted selection list to ensure institutional integrity

As the applicants failed to demonstrate any new evidence or manifest error in the original judgment, the Tribunal found the RA to be an attempt to re-litigate settled issues

it dismissed RA No. 44/2026, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 23.12.2025

The Tribunal affirmed that the UPSC is within its rights to take corrective measures in recruitment processes when the conduct of the Selection Board is compromised

The applicants’ prayer for review was rejected, and the previous order was upheld