Facts
The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 April 2026 dismissing his original application. He relied on an OBC certificate issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17 March 2008, which he said had not been placed on record during the original proceedings through inadvertence.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 1–3In those proceedings, his counsel had stated that the Uttar Pradesh certificate was dated 19 July 2016, after the 14 May 2016 cut-off date; a Delhi/MCD certificate was dated 24 May 2017. The Tribunal first condoned the 104-day delay in filing the review application.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 1–3Issues
Whether the review applicant’s reliance on an OBC certificate not produced in the original proceedings demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Whether the review application could be used to introduce that certificate and seek reconsideration of the merits.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Law Applied
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not an avenue to reappreciate the evidence or reconsider the merits.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 4–5Introducing a document that was not before the Tribunal when it made the original order, without demonstrating an apparent error in that order, does not by itself warrant review. No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 4–5; no citationReasoning
The Tribunal had decided the original application on the material then available, including counsel’s concession that the certificate relied on at that stage post-dated the cut-off date. The 2008 certificate was not part of that record.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Considering it would require the Tribunal to revisit the merits based on new material, rather than correct an apparent error in the original order. The applicant therefore failed to establish a ground for review.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Holding
The Tribunal condoned the 104-day delay in filing the review application.
The Tribunal dismissed the review application in circulation, finding no error apparent on the face of the record in its order dated 7 April 2026. Any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 5–6Original Court PDF
Sandeep KumarvsSOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Review jurisdiction cannot introduce evidence omitted from the original proceedings absent an error apparent on the record.. Sandeep Kumar vs SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/review-jurisdiction-cannot-introduce-evidence-omitted-from-the-original-proceedings-absent-39c944df5b6a4049a05026a7550d9837.webp)