Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to introduce evidence not previously part of the original record.

The applicant, a candidate for the post of SI/ASI in DP CAPFs CISF, filed a Review Application (RA) against the Tribunal's original order in O.A. No. 4739/2015

The applicant had previously approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 13214/2023, contending that the Tribunal's order was perverse for failing to consider his OBC certificate dated 26.06.2015

Before the High Court, the applicant admitted that while the certificate was submitted to the respondents, it was never produced before the Tribunal during the original proceedings

The High Court granted liberty to the applicant to withdraw the writ and file a review petition, directing the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on grounds of delay

The applicant subsequently filed this RA, relying on a representation dated 26.12.2015 to claim the certificate had been submitted to the respondents

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds for review, specifically regarding the discovery or non-consideration of the OBC certificate dated 26.06.2015

2. Whether the OBC certificate was part of the original record or enclosed with the applicant's prior representations to the respondents

The Tribunal applied the principles governing Review Jurisdiction, which necessitate the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed

The court also adhered to the principle of finality in recruitment processes, especially regarding stale claims where a significant duration has passed since the examination

The Tribunal scrutinized the records and the applicant's representation dated 26.12.2015, noting that the representation merely stated that the OBC certificate "could not be produced" due to compulsion and failed to actually enclose the document

Upon examining the e-mail records from 27.12.2015, the Bench found that the images provided did not clearly constitute the OBC certificate

Most significantly, the applicant, who was present in person, "fairly concedes" that the OBC certificate was neither placed on the record of the original OA nor enclosed with the handwritten representation at Annexure A-5

The Tribunal observed that the certificate was produced for the first time only during the Review Application stage

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the temporal gap, noting that the recruitment pertained to the year 2015 while the current proceedings were in the year 2026, making the interference at this late stage unwarranted

The Tribunal held that no grounds for review were made out, especially given the lapse of eleven years since the examination

The Review Application (R.A. 22/2024) was dismissed with no order as to costs