Review cannot be invoked to re-argue concluded issues or re-appreciate facts already adjudicated.

The Review Applicants (original Respondents) sought a review of a judgment dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2951/2022 and connected matters.

The original judgment had examined the legality of orders dated 22.03.2022, 08.09.2022, and 09.09.2022, concerning the denial or delay of absorption of the original applicants from the date of their deputation.

During the pendency of the original OAs, a Circular dated 29.12.2023 was issued, under which the applicants were promoted as AAOs in their deputation offices.

The Tribunal had previously found that the original applicants were entitled to absorption from the date of deputation under a long-standing deputation-cum-absorption policy.

Whether the issuance of a Circular dated 29.12.2023, promoting the applicants, constituted a material alteration of the lis sufficient for review of the judgment dated 18.12.2025?

Whether the original applicants were estopped from claiming deemed absorption from the date of deputation after accepting promotion under the Circular dated 29.12.2023?

Whether the Tribunal erred by not adverting to the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training?

Whether the Tribunal overlooked the settled legal position that deputation does not confer a vested right to absorption?

The Tribunal applied the principle that the scope of review is limited to the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to re-hearing the matter on merits or re-appreciation of facts and submissions already considered and adjudicated.

It also applied the principle that an action held to be contrary to policy and constitutional principles cannot be retrospectively validated by subsequent promotion orders.

The Tribunal considered the principles of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as well as inconsistency with established policy and judicial pronouncements, in its original judgment.

The Tribunal found that the core issue in the original OAs was the applicants' entitlement to absorption from the date of deputation under a consistent deputation-cum-absorption policy, based on the illegality and arbitrariness of the earlier impugned orders.

The Circular dated 29.12.2023, which granted promotions, did not efface the original cause of action concerning the denial or delay of absorption from the date of deputation.

The argument that applicants were estopped was a re-agitation of a defence already considered and rejected in the original judgment, which found that the SAS (Civil Audit) Examination scheme invariably involved deputation-cum-absorption, creating a legitimate expectation.

The Tribunal clarified that the promotion orders could not retrospectively validate actions already deemed illegal and arbitrary.

Furthermore, the non-discussion of the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1989 was not an error apparent, as the judgment had already found a structured deputation-cum-absorption scheme, thus addressing the core issue.

The Tribunal did not ignore the legal position on deputation but applied it to its factual finding that the applicants were not ordinary deputationists but were part of a deputation-cum-absorption scheme, creating legitimate expectation.

The original relief granted was based on findings of arbitrariness, discrimination, and constitutional violations, not merely equitable considerations.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised primarily sought a reconsideration of matters already adjudicated on merits and did not demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or non-consideration of a material issue going to the root of the matter.

The judgment reinforced that the subsequent promotion orders under the Circular dated 29.12.2023 did not invalidate the original cause of action or the Tribunal's finding of unlawful denial of absorption, as the original decision was based on arbitrariness, discrimination, and constitutional violations.