Review cannot reopen the merits absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 September 2026 dismissing his Original Application, which had challenged his dismissal from engagement following disciplinary proceedings concerning IPPB transactions and Government funds.

He argued, among other things, that the original order was internally inconsistent about possible future engagement; that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction because it referred to Rule 18 of the 2020 Rules although proceedings had begun under the 2011 Rules; and that the Tribunal had erred in considering the IPPB-related memorandum, supervisory responsibilities, the appellate order, Exhibit K-6, and the subsequent repayment.

1. Whether the original order contained an apparent contradiction between dismissing the Original Application and stating that any future engagement could be considered in accordance with law.

2. Whether the appellate authority’s reference to Rule 18 of the 2020 Rules disclosed a patent jurisdictional error warranting review.

3. Whether the applicant’s remaining grounds established an apparent error or other basis for review, rather than seeking reconsideration of matters already decided.

Review jurisdiction is limited: review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to obtain a different appreciation of material already considered or to substitute another possible view for the view taken in the original proceedings.

Review is warranted where an error apparent on the face of the record, or a new matter or circumstance justifying review, is established.

A conditional observation that a future application may be considered under applicable rules does not itself confer a right to appointment or engagement where the Tribunal expressly leaves eligibility and entitlement undecided.

The Tribunal held that its dismissal of the Original Application and affirmation of the disciplinary and appellate orders were not contradicted by its separate, expressly conditional observation about possible future engagement.

The reference to Rule 18 of the 2020 Rules did not, by itself, demonstrate that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction, and the applicant identified no patent error apparent from the record.

The remaining submissions—including those concerning the IPPB memorandum, supervisory responsibility, the appellate order, Exhibit K-6, and repayment—had already been considered in the original proceedings. Repeating them sought reappreciation of the same material, which falls outside review jurisdiction.

It dismissed the Review Application under circulation and directed that any pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.