Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue merits or introduce grounds not previously urged.

The review applicants challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 20 March 2026 in O.A. No. 3064/2023.

By that order, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ cases in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., including consideration of the candidature of contractual Special Teachers by the Screening Committee, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The applicants sought review on the ground that the issue of relaxation of the upper-age limit—allegedly the core issue in the original application—had not been specifically adjudicated.

They also filed an application for condonation of a 118-day delay in filing the review application.

1. Whether the 118-day delay in filing the review application should be condoned.

2. Whether the order dated 20 March 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, on the ground that the issue of upper-age relaxation had not been specifically adjudicated.

3. Whether the review application could be used to seek reconsideration of the merits or to raise a ground that was not specifically urged during the original hearing.

The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing review jurisdiction: review is not an appeal or a rehearing on merits; it may be exercised only where an error apparent on the face of the record or another recognized ground for review is established.

A party cannot ordinarily use review proceedings to introduce grounds that were not specifically urged or pressed during the original hearing.

The Tribunal also considered the directions in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 132/2016, which governed the underlying order concerning consideration of contractual Special Teachers, subject to prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the delay and condoned the 118-day delay in filing the review application.

On merits, however, it held that the applicants’ contention regarding upper-age relaxation essentially sought reconsideration of the original matter rather than correction of an apparent error.

The Tribunal noted that the original order had been passed after hearing counsel for the parties and that the issue of upper-age relaxation could have been specifically brought to its attention during the original arguments.

Since no patent error was demonstrated and the applicants sought to raise or re-emphasize a ground not specifically pressed earlier, the limited scope of review jurisdiction was not attracted.

The Review Application was dismissed in circulation because no error apparent on the face of the record or other ground for review was established.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.