Re-adjudication of Merits Under the Guise of Review is Impermissible Absent an Error Apparent on the Record

The applicants filed a batch of Review Applications seeking to review a common judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeals (e.g., W.A.No.1846 of 2025).

The applicants, who were staff at polytechnic colleges, contended that they had been upgraded to "UGHOD" in the pre-revised scale of pay (Rs. 12000-18300) prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 25.05.2010.

They argued that this constituted a "vested/accrued right" and that they should be permitted to re-exercise their options to receive an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 9,000/- based on various AICTE notifications from 2010, 2012, and 2015.

Whether the failure to consider specific AICTE notifications and subsequent Government Orders constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review of the court's earlier judgment.

Whether the applicants seek a re-adjudication of the merits under the guise of a review petition.

The Court applied Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the power of review.

Under this rule, a review is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise".

The court further emphasized the principle that re-adjudication of merits in review proceedings is impermissible, as the scope of review is strictly confined and cannot be expanded to address grounds that are properly the subject of an appeal to a higher forum.

The Court observed that the Senior Counsel for the applicants was essentially attempting to re-argue the merits of the case by relying on AICTE notifications and Government Orders that were supposedly not fully appreciated in the original judgment.

The Court reasoned that evaluating the "effect of notifications" or the "scope of Government Orders" involves a process of re-adjudication, which exceeds the limited jurisdiction of a review.

The bench noted that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the findings of the original judgment (dated 16.07.2025), the appropriate remedy was to prefer an appeal before a higher forum, rather than seeking a review by treating appellate grounds as errors apparent on the record.

The Court dismissed all Review Applications (REV.APPL Nos. 28 to 32 of 2026), stating that the grounds raised were essentially grounds for appeal and thus impermissible in review proceedings.

No costs were awarded.