Re-adjudication of Merits Is Impermissible Under Review Jurisdiction Absent an Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

The applicants filed a Review Application seeking to review an order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.A.No.844 of 2013

The second applicant withdrew from the proceedings on 16.10.2023

The applicants contended they were overlooked for promotion to the post of Licence Inspector despite passing the departmental examinations.

However, the applicants admitted that the crucial date for the 2009 promotion panel was in 2008, a date on which they were not yet qualified

The applicants argued that the court failed to consider these merits in the original Writ Appeal

1. Whether the non-consideration of grounds on merits regarding promotional eligibility constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction

2. Whether the scope of a Review Application allows for the re-adjudication of the merits of a case

The Court applied the established legal principle limiting the scope of review jurisdiction, maintaining that re-adjudication of merits is impermissible in review proceedings

It held that a review is maintainable only in the event of an "error apparent" on the face of the record.

The court emphasized that the non-consideration of certain grounds raised on merits does not, by itself, provide a valid scope for maintaining a review application under the relevant procedural standards

The Court reasoned that the power of review is not an appellate power in disguise.

Although the applicants argued that their qualification for promotion was not properly weighed in the previous order, the Court noted that the applicants themselves admitted they were not qualified on the "crucial date" (2008) required for the 2009 promotion panel

The Court held that even if certain merit-based arguments were not explicitly addressed in the original judgment, this does not constitute an "error apparent"

To re-examine such grounds would amount to an impermissible re-adjudication of the case, which exceeds the narrow legal scope of review jurisdiction

The Court dismissed the Review Application, affirming that the applicants were not qualified on the crucial date for the promotion panel and that the merits of the case could not be re-opened

No costs were awarded