Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent and cannot be utilized to re-argue merits or correct decisions.

The Review Applicant, an Economic Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, filed a Review Application (RA) seeking review of the Tribunal's order dated 02.02.2026 in OA No. 3414/2018

The original OA challenged the applicant's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) gradings for the year 2016–17 and the rejection orders of his representations dated 28.08.2017 and 05.09.2017

The Tribunal had dismissed the OA, ruling that the scope of judicial review in APAR assessments is limited and that the applicant failed to demonstrate malafide or procedural irregularity

The applicant filed the present RA on the grounds that the Tribunal committed errors apparent on the face of the record by mis-recording pleadings and failing to examine the legality of the rejection orders, which the applicant alleged were non-speaking and arbitrary

1. Whether the order dated 02.02.2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or a mistake of law/fact justifying review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether a challenge to the legality of the decision-making process (rejection of representations) can be re-agitated in review jurisdiction when it has already been considered in the original proceedings

The Tribunal exercised its review power under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is analogous to Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

It relied on the principles established in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. (2008), which stipulate that a review is permissible only for "errors apparent on the face of record" and not for correcting erroneous decisions in the guise of a review

It further cited Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004) and Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others (1999) to emphasize that discovery of new evidence or errors must be self-evident and not discoverable only through a long process of reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Review Applicant was attempting to re-argue the merits of the case, which had already been adjudicated

It observed that the original order had explicitly dealt with the limited scope of judicial review in APAR matters, concluding that the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority over administrative discretion unless there is demonstrable illegality

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that it had overlooked the "non-speaking" nature of the rejection orders, stating that all facts brought out were duly considered in the original order

Applying the Kamal Sengupta principles, the Tribunal reasoned that since there was no discovery of new evidence or a self-evident error, the applicant's grievances regarding the subjective assessment of his performance did not constitute valid grounds for review

It concluded that a review cannot be used as a tool to correct a decision that the applicant perceives as erroneous; such a challenge must be pursued through other legal remedies rather than review jurisdiction

Consequently, the order dated 02.02.2026 was upheld