Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Re-Appreciation of Merits or Challenging Policy Decisions Absent Patent Error

The Review Applicants (20 Junior Radiographers) sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 13.02.2026.

In the original O.A., the Tribunal found the 2021 Recruitment Regulations arbitrary for failing to provide a "protection clause" for Dark Room Assistants (DRAs) who had served over nine years and lost their promotional avenue to Radiographer posts.

The Tribunal had directed the ESIC to amend the Regulations to safeguard the DRAs' career progression.

The Review Applicants, who were not parties to the original O.A., argued that implementing this "protection clause" would allow unqualified personnel to handle radiation equipment in violation of safety norms and adversely affect their own seniority and promotional rights.

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the Order dated 13.02.2026 warranting a review under the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

2. Whether the directions to protect the promotional avenues of Dark Room Assistants via a "protection clause" violates statutory safety frameworks (Atomic Energy Act, 1962) or prejudices the rights of qualified Junior Radiographers.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that the scope of review is extremely restrictive, intended only for correcting "errors apparent on the face of the record," and cannot function as an "appeal in disguise" or a "re-appreciation of the entire matter".

Regarding locus standi for non-parties, it acknowledged precedents like K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India and Dr. Jiji K.S. vs. Shibu K., which allow aggrieved non-parties to seek redressal.

The principle from State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar that there is no vested right to promotion under repealed rules, but educational qualifications must be balanced with administrative protection for transitional employees.

The Tribunal found that the Review Applicants were essentially attempting to re-argue the merits of the case rather than pointing out a patent clerical or legal error.

The court reasoned that its original order did not mandate the violation of safety standards or the promotion of unqualified individuals, but rather directed the employer to create an "appropriate protection clause".

The Tribunal noted that because the ESIC has not yet drafted or implemented the specific amendments, the Review Applicants' fear of losing seniority is "premature".

It emphasized that the administrative process of amending rules involves circulating draft rules, which will provide the Review Applicants a legal opportunity to object.

The court granted liberty to the Review Applicants and specifically the six individuals potentially affected by seniority shifts to submit representations to the Competent Authority at the appropriate stage; it further directed that any proposed amendments to the Recruitment Rules must be duly circulated to allow for objections.