Judicial review cannot be exercised to direct the amendment of recruitment rules or the creation of promotional avenues.

The petitioners, third parties to the original proceedings, sought a review of a Division Bench order dated 21.04.2017.

Originally, the Puducherry State Public Works Department Work Assistants Association filed applications (O.A. Nos. 725 & 614 of 2014) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, seeking directions to include Work Assistants in the hierarchy for promotion to Junior Engineer and to amend recruitment rules.

The CAT issued a positive direction on 24.02.2016 for the UT Administration and UPSC to attend to these grievances and complete the amendment process within six months.

The Union of India challenged this in W.P. Nos. 5637 & 5638 of 2017. The High Court subsequently set aside the CAT’s order, finding that the employees had already received MACP benefits and that the CAT had overstepped its jurisdiction by acting as an executive body.

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the High Court's order dated 21.04.2017 warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the legal authority to issue positive directions to the government to amend recruitment rules or create promotional avenues.

Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which requires the demonstration of an "error apparent on the face of the record" for a review to be maintainable.

Doctrine of Separation of Powers, asserting that the power of judicial review does not extend to directing the executive to amend recruitment rules or create specific promotional cadres, as such actions fall within the exclusive realm of executive policy-making.

The Court reaffirmed its previous finding that the CAT's order mandated the amendment of recruitment rules and the promotion of employees to Junior Engineer—a "Group-B" post requiring UPSC concurrence.

The Court reasoned that by issuing such directions, the Tribunal "virtually acted as the executive".

The Court highlighted that the employees had already received financial upgrades via the MACP scheme.

In the review stage, the Court found that the petitioners failed to identify any new evidence or legal error that was not already considered during the writ proceedings; mere disagreement with the Court's interpretation of the CAT's direction does not constitute an "error apparent".

It concluded that the previous Bench was correct in ruling that directing the creation of promotional avenues falls beyond the scope of judicial review.

Both review petitions (REV.APLW Nos. 105 & 106 of 2026) were dismissed without costs.