Review jurisdiction cannot reopen merits or reappreciate evidence absent an error apparent on the record.

The Review Applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s final order dated 20 August 2026 in O.A. No. 3793/2018, which had quashed his appointment as void ab initio.

He argued that, after his termination in 2021, he had been reinstated by an order dated 18 January 2024 following verification of his experience, and that the reinstatement order had not been challenged in the OA.

The Tribunal noted that the OA had been filed in 2018 and remained pending when the reinstatement order was made.

The Review Applicant had also pursued O.A. No. 301/2021 concerning his termination; that OA was disposed of with liberty to make a representation, but the applicants in O.A. No. 3793/2018 were not impleaded.

Whether the subsequent reinstatement order and departmental verification disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order quashing the Review Applicant’s appointment.

Whether the Review Applicant’s challenges to the Tribunal’s findings on eligibility, the experience certificate, and the original applicant’s locus could be reconsidered in review.

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction: review is not a rehearing, and a different possible interpretation of the evidence does not justify review.

The applicant must demonstrate a self-evident error, omission, or mistake on the face of the record; arguments seeking re-appreciation of evidence or reopening of the merits are matters for appeal, not review.

The Tribunal also held that a subsequent administrative order cannot, by itself, override pending judicial proceedings, particularly where a relevant development was not brought to the Tribunal’s attention when it could have been considered.

No specific statute or precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the reinstatement order post-dated the filing of the OA and did not itself establish an error in the earlier adjudication.

The Review Applicant and the official respondents had the responsibility to place relevant facts before the Tribunal; the Review Applicant could not rely in review on developments not presented at the appropriate stage.

His reliance on subsequent verification, departmental explanations, and the asserted validity of his experience certificate sought a fresh assessment of the evidence already considered in the original order.

The Tribunal further concluded that the separate termination proceedings and subsequent reinstatement could not be used to bypass the pending OA, and that the arguments concerning eligibility and locus did not disclose a patent error.

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