Power of Review Cannot Be Exercised to Reheat Merits or Substitute Alternative Judicial Views

The Review Applicants, former contractual employees under the Gramin Krishi Mausam Sewa (GKMS) Scheme, challenged the termination of their services.

The Tribunal had previously disposed of their Original Application on 27.03.2026 via a consent order

The Applicants filed this Review Application (RA) alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider that the GKMS Scheme was not actually discontinued but restructured into "Mission Mausam"

They further contended that the respondents suppressed facts regarding fresh MoUs and were attempting to replace one set of contractual employees with another

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence sufficient to justify the review of the order dated 27.03.2026

2. Whether a party can seek a rehearing on merits under the guise of review jurisdiction when the original order was passed with the consent of counsels

Review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is strictly confined to correcting patent errors or considering newly discovered material evidence

S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka regarding finality of judgments

Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, which holds that an error requiring a process of reasoning to detect is not an "error apparent"

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, defining patent errors

Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhuri, stating that a review cannot be granted where two opinions are conceivable

The Tribunal found that the Applicants’ grounds—such as the failure to adjudicate the restructuring of the GKMS scheme or the alleged violation of natural justice—essentially sought a re-adjudication of the substantive merits of the case

The Court reasoned that since the impugned judgment was a "consent order" passed with the agreement of both parties' counsels, the Applicants could not now challenge the adequacy of the relief granted

The Tribunal determined that the Applicants failed to point to any "error apparent on the face of the record" as defined by settled law; rather, they were attempting to re-argue the controversy

The Court emphasized that a review cannot be exercised to substitute one possible view for another or to disturb finality unless a glaring omission or patent mistake is evident

The Tribunal answered the issues by clarifying that dissatisfaction with a judgment or the desire for a deeper inquiry into facts does not constitute a ground for review when no patent error exists

Consequently, the Review Application (RA No. 57/2026) was dismissed in circulation