English versions of examination questions prevail by common practice despite the absence of specific written instructions.

The Review Applicants, Constables in the Delhi Police, sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 03.02.2026, which had dismissed their Original Application (OA No. 4708/2015)

The applicants contended that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record by relying on an instruction (Para 15) from a test booklet which stated that the English version of questions would prevail over the Hindi version in case of variation

They asserted that this specific instruction did not exist in the 2014 examination booklet they used, but pertained to a subsequent year’s examination

The applicants argued that reliance on a document from a different year led to an erroneous finding

1. Whether the reliance on an instruction from a subsequent year’s test booklet constitutes an "error apparent on the face of record" warranting a review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the "common practice" of the English version prevailing in examination disputes justifies the dismissal of the OA despite the absence of a specific instruction in the relevant year's booklet

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding review jurisdiction

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008), which established that review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and prohibits the re-appreciation of evidence

It further cited Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004), holding that a review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or a fresh hearing for new arguments

The Tribunal acknowledged that the specific instruction regarding the English version prevailing was not present in the 2014 test booklet but appeared in subsequent years

However, the Tribunal reasoned that its original decision was based on "common knowledge and past practice," asserting that English versions traditionally prevail in competitive exams

The Bench noted that the issue of variation between Hindi and English versions had been specifically considered during the initial adjudication of the OA

It determined that the Review Application was essentially an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case and seek a re-appreciation of facts, which falls outside the narrow scope of review jurisdiction

The Tribunal emphasized that even if an alternative view were possible, it does not constitute a patent error warranting interference

It held that the grounds urged did not disclose any patent error or mistake apparent on the face of the record

The Court affirmed that the English version shall prevail based on reasoning and common practice, and concluded that the matter deserved a "quietus and decent burial" due to its age