Review cannot reopen a finding that a recruitment challenge was premature absent rejection of candidature.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 April 2026 in O.A. No. 3386/2022, which had held his Original Application premature.

He contended that Advertisement No. 08/2022, dated 14 October 2022, had been issued and that he had approached the Tribunal before the application deadline seeking, among other relief, age relaxation available to meritorious sportspersons.

He had been unable to submit an application under the recruitment process because of his grievance concerning the absence of that relaxation; the respondents had therefore not rejected his candidature as over-age.

The Tribunal first condoned the 102-day delay in filing the Review Application and then considered it in circulation.

1. Whether the Original Application was premature because the applicant’s candidature had not been rejected on the ground of being over-age.

2. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground warranting review of the judgment dated 30 April 2026.

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction: review is not a means to reconsider a matter or reappreciate the relief claimed, and intervention requires an error apparent on the face of the record or another recognised ground for review.

It also treated the absence of a decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature as relevant to whether a subsisting grievance had arisen.

The order cites no statute or precedent.

Although the recruitment advertisement had been issued, the applicant had not submitted an application and the respondents had not rejected his candidature for being over-age. The Tribunal therefore found no decision giving rise to a subsisting grievance and upheld its earlier conclusion that the Original Application was premature.

It further held that the Review Application’s grounds sought reconsideration of the matter and reappreciation of the relief claimed, which exceeded the limited scope of review.

No error apparent or other ground for review was established.

The Tribunal dismissed the Review Application in circulation, finding no ground to review the judgment dated 30 April 2026.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.