Failure to separately adjudicate an applicant’s eligibility does not constitute an error apparent warranting review.

Bhanu Priya sought review of the common order dated 30 July 2026 in O.A. No. 964/2023 and connected matters, including her O.A. No. 2594/2023.

She argued that the Tribunal had not specifically adjudicated her eligibility, although the order recorded that she held a B.A. (Hons.) from the University of Delhi and had studied Hindi in the first and second years of graduation.

She also relied on a certificate dated 2 September 2022 from Ramjas College and judgments she said had not been considered.

Whether the Tribunal’s failure to separately address the review applicant’s individual eligibility or submissions constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Whether reconsidering the applicant’s Hindi studies, college certificate and eligibility under the Recruitment Rules would fall within the limited scope of review.

The Tribunal applied the principle that review is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record or another recognised ground for review; it is not an appeal or a rehearing on the merits.

A request requiring fresh examination of evidence, qualifications or the application of material already on record does not, by itself, justify review.

The order identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for this principle.

The Tribunal found that the original order had considered the Recruitment Rules, the appended Note, the applicants’ qualifications and the governing legal position, and had specifically recorded the review applicant’s qualifications in a comparative table.

The fact that each submission or document was not discussed separately did not establish an apparent error.

Determining whether her Hindi studies and the Ramjas College certificate satisfied the Recruitment Rules would require a fresh examination of her qualifications and eligibility, which would amount to a merits rehearing.

Her complaint about the treatment of cited judgments likewise did not establish a patent error.

It dismissed the Review Application, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications and made no order as to costs.