J&K CAT Rejects Stock Assistant’s Delayed Review, Leaving Her Appointment Quashed And Supernumerary-Post Adjustment In Place

In the judgment under review, dated 27 December 2024, the Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 959/2020, quashed the applicant’s appointment as Stock Assistant, and directed the official respondents to appoint the answering respondent notionally; to protect the applicant, who had served for about four years, it also directed creation of a supernumerary post for her adjustment.

The applicant challenged that judgment in WP(C) No. 238/2025 before the High Court, then withdrew the petition with liberty to seek review before the Tribunal.

She filed this Review Application on 25 September 2025, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

The applicant relied, among other things, on constructive res judicata, subsequent decisions, her service and promotion, and the time spent pursuing the writ petition.

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on limited grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds; review is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear the case or substitute another possible view.

The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 provides that a subsequent decision altering or modifying the law is not, by itself, a ground for review.

Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes a 30-day period for filing a review application.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may permit exclusion of time spent prosecuting a proceeding with due diligence and in good faith before a court unable to entertain it because of a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature.

The Tribunal also relied on Smt. Arifa v. Abhiman Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. for the principle that liberty to pursue a fresh proceeding does not, by itself, save limitation.

The Tribunal held that the res judicata contention had already been considered in the original judgment and could not be reopened merely by repeating it in review.

The cited subsequent decisions were materially different and did not establish an apparent error; nor did the applicant’s service, training or promotion warrant review, since her service-related equities had already been addressed through the direction to create a supernumerary post.

The applicant had pursued a writ petition before a competent High Court and withdrew it herself; there was no finding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction or that the petition had been returned or dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal therefore found no basis to exclude that period under Section 14.

It also concluded that the applicant’s explanation concerning her posting, heavy rains and road blockage did not justify interference, particularly in the absence of a reviewable error.

It dismissed both the Review Application and the application for condonation of delay, leaving the judgment dated 27 December 2024 undisturbed, with no order as to costs.