Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent and cannot be invoked to re-argue matters.

The Review Applicant, a retired Technical Officer, filed a Review Application (RA) under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking a review of the Tribunal's order dated 09.12.2025 passed in MA No. 5251/2025.

The Applicant sought to set aside the direction imposing costs, requested reconsideration of reliefs allegedly not adjudicated in previous miscellaneous applications, and challenged the authority of the learned counsel representing the respondents.

The Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter by circulation.

1. Whether the Applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record or discovered new evidence sufficient to invoke the limited review jurisdiction under Rule 17.

2. Whether the challenge to the authority of the respondents' counsel or the judicial discretion used in imposing costs constitutes a valid ground for review.

The Tribunal applied Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which restricts the power of review to cases involving the discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

The rule establishes that review jurisdiction is not an appellate tool to re-argue the matter or substitute a different judicial view.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to present any new or important evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original order.

It observed that the RA largely reiterated submissions that had already been considered in the order dated 09.12.2025, which amounts to re-arguing the case—an action impermissible in review jurisdiction.

Regarding the procedural irregularities and the authority of the respondents' counsel, the Tribunal noted these are disputed questions of fact and do not constitute "errors apparent on the face of the record".

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the non-consideration of specific reliefs did not disclose a manifest error.

the imposition of costs was an exercise of judicial discretion that did not warrant interference without a demonstrated error.

The Review Application was dismissed in circulation, and no further order as to costs was made.