Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting self-evident errors and cannot serve as an appeal in disguise.

The Applicant participated in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post of Junior Engineer (JE-II/TM) against a 2010 vacancy

In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal quashed the original panel dated 08.11.2011, directing the Respondents to recast it strictly based on merit without computing seniority marks

Upon recasting, the Applicant was again not empanelled, having secured 55.5 marks against the last selected candidate's 57.5 marks

The Applicant filed O.A. 350/440/2015 seeking communication of ACRs for 2008–2010 and a review DPC, which was dismissed on 05.02.2026

The Applicant subsequently filed the instant Review Application (RA) to review that dismissal, arguing that non-communication of ACRs prejudiced his selection

1. Whether there exists any "error apparent on the face of the record" in the Order dated 05.02.2026 that justifies the exercise of review jurisdiction

2. Whether the non-communication of ACRs for the years 2008–2010 played a role in the Applicant’s non-selection in an LDCE where merit was the primary criterion

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which aligns review powers with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

A review is limited to correcting self-evident errors and cannot be an "appeal in disguise" as per Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997)

An error must be discoverable without a long process of reasoning and review cannot be used to correct an "erroneous decision" under State of West Bengal v. Kamal Kumar Sengupta (2008)

Principles regarding ACR communication established in Dev Dutt (2008) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (2009)

The Tribunal observed that in the recasted merit-based panel, the Applicant failed to qualify solely due to securing lower marks than the last selected UR candidate

ACR gradings had no impact on his non-selection

The Applicant did not raise the issue of non-communication of ACRs during the first round of litigation or for seven years following the relevant period, only doing so after his name was excluded from the recasted list

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant’s plea was essentially an attempt to re-argue the case rather than pointing out a self-evident error based on the Kamal Kumar Sengupta and Parsion Devi precedents

The original decision was based on the factual finding that selection was merit-based and the Applicant fell short of the cut-off, thus there was no mistake apparent on the record

The court affirmed that the Applicant's non-selection resulted from his failure to meet the merit cut-off in the LDCE and that the belated challenge regarding ACRs did not constitute a ground for review

No order as to costs was made