Review is warranted where newly discovered merit-list evidence reveals a patent error affecting seniority.

The petitioner sought review of the judgment dated 19 December 2025 passed in WPA 596 of 2025, which had upheld Office Order No. 1173 dated 25 November 2025 concerning the seniority of Mukhya Sevika candidates.

After the judgment, the petitioner received information pursuant to an RTI application dated 2 December 2025, which disclosed the relevant merit-list records.

The documents showed that the original appointments had been made on the basis of a category-wise merit list, whereas the normal/common merit list placed the petitioner at rank 8 and the private respondents at ranks 9 and 10.

The mark sheet further showed that the petitioner had secured 50.75 marks, while respondent Pratima Rai had secured 49 marks and respondent Sulata Samaddar had secured 27.5 marks.

The review application was filed pursuant to leave granted by the Division Bench in MAT 8 of 2026 on 3 February 2026.

Whether the subsequent discovery and production of the merit-list and mark-sheet documents constituted a permissible ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Whether the seniority list prepared on the basis of the category-wise merit list, rather than the normal/common merit list, was legally sustainable?

Whether Office Order No. 1173 dated 25 November 2025 was liable to be quashed and replaced by a seniority list based on the revised normal merit list?

The Court applied Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which review is permissible upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

Relying on BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741, the Court held that “sufficient reason” may include a mistake of fact or law and circumstances warranting correction to prevent injustice.

The Court also relied on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 INSC 1080, which clarified that review is not an appeal or rehearing; however, it may be exercised to correct a patent error, consider genuinely unavailable evidence despite due diligence, or prevent miscarriage of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that seniority must be determined in accordance with the legally applicable and properly prepared merit list, rather than an undisclosed or improperly applied category-wise list.

The Court found that the RTI-derived documents materially altered the factual basis on which the original judgment had proceeded.

The original decision had relied on the appointment order and the final seniority list, both of which placed the private respondents above the petitioner.

The newly produced records, however, showed that the petitioner had secured the highest marks among the concerned candidates and stood above the private respondents in the normal/common merit list.

Since the appointments and subsequent seniority determination had been based on a category-wise list without publication of the final marks, the petitioner had suffered apparent prejudice despite obtaining higher marks.

The Court held that the documents constituted sufficient new material warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

It further concluded that the continuation of the seniority list based on the category-wise ranking was prima facie contrary to law and that seniority ought to be reassessed on the basis of the revised normal merit list.

The Court reviewed and recalled its judgment dated 19 December 2025 in WPA 596 of 2025 on the basis of the newly produced merit-list and mark-sheet documents.

Office Order No. 1173 dated 25 November 2025 was quashed and set aside.

The authorities were directed to issue or publish a fresh order/merit list fixing seniority on the basis of the revised normal merit list, and not the category-wise list, within 60 days.

RVW 2 of 2026, WPA 596 of 2025, CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 were disposed of, and any interim order stood vacated.