Review jurisdiction cannot introduce evidence omitted from the original proceedings without demonstrated due diligence.

Shri S. Sundaram, a Semi-skilled Carpenter under the Andaman & Nicobar Command, claimed first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme after completing 12 years of service on 1 May 1999.

The Tribunal, by order dated 1 May 2025, directed the respondents to grant him the first financial upgradation in the scale of Rs. 3050–4590 for the promotional post of Carpenter (Skilled) with effect from 9 August 1999, along with consequential benefits.

The Union of India and departmental authorities filed the present Review Application, together with an application for condonation of delay, contending that the Tribunal had failed to consider the requirement under para 6 of Annexure-I to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1999 that an employee must satisfy normal promotional norms, including passing the departmental qualifying examination.

The Review Applicants further relied on S.R.O. 131 dated 14 June 1984, which allegedly required Semi-skilled workers to pass a departmental qualifying test before promotion to the Skilled grade.

They claimed that the S.R.O. could not earlier be produced despite due diligence and that the Tribunal had mistakenly relied on later amendments, S.R.O. 150/2000 and S.R.O. 262/2002.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s earlier O.A. had been dismissed on the ground that he had failed the departmental examination.

That order was subsequently set aside by the Calcutta High Court, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after consideration of the 1987 amendment to the Recruitment Rules and the Supreme Court’s decision in Amaresh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar.

On remand, the respondents did not plead or produce S.R.O. 131 before the Tribunal, nor had they referred to it before the High Court.

The Tribunal accordingly decided the O.A. on the materials available on record and in compliance with the High Court’s remand directions.

Whether the Review Applicants had established an error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally permissible ground warranting review of the Tribunal’s order dated 1 May 2025 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the alleged non-consideration of para 6 of the DoPT O.M. dated 9 August 1999 and the requirement of passing the departmental qualifying examination constituted a ground for review.

Whether S.R.O. 131 dated 14 June 1984 could be introduced at the review stage as new evidence allegedly unavailable despite due diligence.

Whether the Review Applicants could rely upon a change of their earlier stand regarding para 6.2 of the DoPT O.M. and seek reconsideration of the merits under the guise of review.

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Tribunal’s review power is analogous to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Review is confined to recognised grounds such as discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason; it cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision or operate as an appeal in disguise.

The Tribunal relied on State of West Bengal v. Kamal Kumar Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, and Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, for these principles.

On the merits of ACP eligibility, para 6 of Annexure-I to the DoPT O.M. dated 9 August 1999 requires fulfilment of normal promotional conditions, including the departmental qualifying examination, where applicable.

The relevant Recruitment Rules, including S.R.O. 131 dated 14 June 1984, could affect eligibility for promotion from Semi-skilled to Skilled grade.

The Tribunal held that the Review Applicants had not shown due diligence in producing S.R.O. 131.

The document was not mentioned in their pleadings before the Tribunal, was not produced during the earlier proceedings, and was also not relied upon before the High Court.

Its subsequent production therefore did not satisfy the requirement that new evidence could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier.

The alleged failure to apply para 6 of the DoPT O.M. did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

Although the Tribunal had referred to para 6.2, the respondents themselves had relied on that provision in their reply before the Tribunal and could not adopt a contrary position at the review stage.

Further, determining the effect of S.R.O. 131, the 1987 amendment, and the departmental examination requirement would involve reappreciation of the merits and a process of reasoning, which falls outside the limited review jurisdiction recognised in Kamal Kumar Sengupta and Parison Devi.

The attempt to rely on S.R.O. 131 and reconsider the departmental-examination requirement amounted to seeking a rehearing on merits, which was impermissible in review jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Review Application and the accompanying application for condonation of delay were dismissed, with no order as to costs.