Review jurisdiction cannot reopen merits absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

The applicant participated in the 2009 selection process for appointment as Constable in IRP Battalions and was placed at Serial No. 12 in the RBA select list for District Rajouri.

During pre-recruitment verification, it was found that he was involved in FIR No. 12/2004 under Sections 307, 341, 333 and 323 RPC.

Although he was acquitted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, on 30.03.2013, a Designated Committee found him unsuitable for appointment in the Police Department, resulting in rejection orders dated 01.01.2014 and 13.03.2015.

The applicant challenged those orders in T.A. No. 8084/2021, arising from SWP No. 1964/2015, but the Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application on 07.07.2025.

By the present Review Application, the applicant sought recall/review of the judgment, relying principally on his subsequent engagement as a Special Police Officer in 2017 and his alleged juvenility at the time of registration of the FIR, based on his date of birth being 15.04.1988.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that no error apparent on the face of the record had been demonstrated and that the applicant was seeking a rehearing on merits.

1. Whether the applicant had demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally permissible ground warranting review or recall of the judgment dated 07.07.2025?

2. Whether the applicant’s subsequent engagement as an SPO and his plea of juvenility at the time of the FIR constituted grounds for reopening the original decision?

3. Whether the Review Application amounted to an impermissible attempt to seek rehearing and re-appreciation of the merits of the Transfer Application?

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction and is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record or another legally recognised review ground; review cannot be used to obtain a rehearing, re-appreciation of evidence, or reconsideration of competing submissions.

It further applied the principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment where appointment remains subject to verification of character, antecedents and suitability, particularly in a disciplined police force.

The Tribunal also recognised that a subsequent factual development or a new argument requiring examination of additional facts and legal consequences does not ordinarily constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the original judgment had expressly considered the applicant’s selection, criminal case, subsequent acquittal, the Designated Committee’s independent assessment of his suitability, the rejection orders and the delay involved.

Consequently, the applicant’s contention that the criminal proceedings or acquittal had been overlooked was rejected.

His later engagement as an SPO in 2017 arose in a different factual and legal context from his claim to regular appointment as a Constable pursuant to the 2009 selection process; determining the weight to be given to that engagement would require fresh evaluation of the merits, which was impermissible in review jurisdiction.

Similarly, the juvenility plea was treated as a new line of argument requiring examination of additional facts and legal consequences, rather than as a self-evident error in the earlier judgment.

Since the grounds essentially sought reconsideration of the applicant’s suitability and a different assessment of the acquittal and subsequent SPO engagement, the Tribunal held that the application was an appeal in disguise.

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record or other legally permissible ground for review had been established.

The Review Application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, and the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 in T.A. No. 8084/2021 was left undisturbed.

No order was made as to costs.