Review jurisdiction cannot secure substantive relief absent an error apparent on the record.

The applicant, Raiz Ahmed Aatoo, filed a Review Application seeking review or modification of the Tribunal’s order dated 25 August 2026 in O.A. No. 61/1175/2026.

In the Original Application, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to treat the application as a formal representation and to pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding his grievance concerning deployment to a nearby school.

The applicant relied on a communication dated 11 August 2026 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Doda, which referred to approval of his proposed deployment from HSS Gundna to HS Tantna.

He contended that this communication constituted a material development which, if considered earlier, would have resulted in a different order.

The respondents opposed the Review Application.

Whether the communication dated 11 August 2026 and the alleged approval for deployment to HS Tantna constituted a new and important matter or evidence warranting review of the order dated 25 August 2026

Whether the order dated 25 August 2026 contained an error apparent on the face of the record requiring review, recall, or modification

Whether the Tribunal could, in review jurisdiction, direct implementation of the alleged departmental approval for deployment to HS Tantna

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as appellate jurisdiction or for a rehearing on merits.

Review is permissible only on recognized grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient ground analogous thereto.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that review cannot be used to obtain a positive substantive relief requiring examination of disputed departmental records, the authority competent to grant approval, or the legality of the underlying administrative action.

The Tribunal held that the Original Application had not been finally decided on the applicant’s entitlement to deployment to any particular school; rather, the respondents had merely been directed to consider his grievance and pass a speaking order.

The communication dated 11 August 2026 preceded the order under review and was therefore not a subsequent event.

The applicant had failed to establish, beyond a bare assertion, that the document could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

Even if considered, the communication did not demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record because the alleged approval could still be placed before the competent authority during consideration of the applicant’s representation.

Granting the requested relief would require adjudication of the validity, effect, and competence underlying the alleged approval, which exceeded the scope of review jurisdiction.

It held that the applicant had failed to establish either an error apparent on the face of the record or a new and important matter satisfying the due-diligence requirement.

Accordingly, the Review Application was dismissed, and the order dated 25 August 2026 was neither reviewed, recalled, nor modified.

No order as to costs was made.