Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-adjudicate merits or act as an appeal in disguise.

The review applicants originally filed OA No. 290 of 2017 challenging the selection of private respondents (Respondents 3-8) for the post of Assistant Station Master (ASM) under a 2016 notification

The applicants alleged that the private respondents were ineligible Group 'D' employees who had not completed the mandatory five years of service

Furthermore, they contended that the selection criteria were illegally altered midway by the inclusion of marks for service records, which was not specified in the initial advertisement

The Tribunal dismissed the OA on 06.02.2026, holding that the applicants had participated in the selection process (written and psycho tests) without protest and were now estopped from challenging the results after being declared unsuccessful

The applicants filed this review application seeking a recall of the dismissal order, citing errors apparent on the face of the record and re-agitating their claims regarding Grade Pay and service record marks

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment dated 06.02.2026

2. Whether the inclusion of service record marks in the final merit list, despite not being mentioned in the advertisement, constituted an illegal change in recruitment conditions

3. Whether the applicants are estopped from challenging the eligibility of private respondents after participating in the selection process without protest

The Tribunal applied the principle of estoppel, noting that candidates who participate in a selection process without challenging the terms cannot later challenge the process upon failing

It relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which establishes that recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway unless extant rules permit

The Tribunal further applied the statutory provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) regarding departmental promotions and Railway Board Establishment (RBE) No. 5/2010 for the classification of railway services into Group 'C' and 'D'

The Tribunal examined the applicants' contention that service record marks were illegally introduced.

It reasoned that while the advertisement was silent, the IREC (statutory rules) specifically provides for service record marks in departmental promotions; thus, per Tej Prakash Pathak, this did not constitute an illegal mid-way change

Regarding the classification of respondents, the Tribunal noted that RBE No. 5/2010 supported the private respondents' claim of being Group 'C' employees (Grade Pay Rs. 1900), and the applicants failed to produce evidence to the contrary

Critically, the Tribunal observed that the applicants raised no objections regarding eligibility during the written or psycho tests, only challenging the process after their final failure, which is impermissible under the doctrine of estoppel

In the review stage, the Tribunal found that the applicants were merely re-arguing the same facts and legal positions already adjudicated in the OA, which does not meet the threshold for a review

It concluded that a review application cannot be used to re-agitate identical issues or serve as a substitute for an appeal to a higher judicial forum

Review Application No. 10 of 2026 was dismissed as being devoid of merits, and all associated MAs were disposed of