Non-consideration of selection process cancellation constitutes an error apparent on the face of record warranting review.

The petitioners (Union of India/Ministry of Railways) filed a review application against a High Court order dated January 3, 2018, passed in W.P. No. 27272 of 2011.

The original dispute involved selection to the post of Loco Pilot (Passenger) Grade 1.

The petitioners contended that the selection proceedings dated October 19, 2009, were cancelled by the Divisional Office, a fact that made the original writ relief unimplementable.

The respondents (employees) had subsequently participated in a fresh selection process and were promoted, yet claimed that the issue of seniority fixation remained unresolved.

1. Whether the failure of the Court to consider the cancellation of the selection process vide proceedings dated October 19, 2009, constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" warranting a review of the order.

2. Whether the writ petition should be restored to address unresolved issues regarding the fixation of seniority.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 114 of the CPC, which empowers a court to review its own order upon the discovery of an error apparent on the face of the record.

The court also considered the principle that once an underlying selection process is cancelled, any relief predicated on that specific selection must be re-evaluated to ensure it is capable of implementation and consistent with subsequent developments, such as fresh selections and promotions.

The Bench observed that the cancellation of the selection process via the proceedings dated October 19, 2009, was a "vital point".

Despite being placed before the Tribunal and the Writ Court, this fact was not taken into consideration in the order dated January 3, 2018.

The Court reasoned that since the cancellation had a direct impact on the feasibility of the relief granted, ignoring it resulted in an "error apparent".

Furthermore, while the review was justified due to this oversight, the Court acknowledged the respondents' argument that the seniority issue remained live and required judicial determination. Therefore, the appropriate remedy was to recall the erroneous order and restore the writ petition to the file for a fresh hearing on its merits.

The Court ordered that the writ order dated January 3, 2018, in W.P. No. 27272 of 2011 be recalled and the writ petition be restored to the file for fresh consideration of the issues, including seniority. No costs were awarded.