Review jurisdiction is limited to self-evident errors, not re-adjudicating merits or converting to appeal.

The review applicants, pharmacists working in ESIC, initially filed OA No.2151/2014, which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decided on May 6, 2015 [p.3].

The CAT directed ESIC to formulate a proper cadre structure for pharmacists, consider the applicants for promotion to higher grades, and suitably amend existing Recruitment Rules (RRs), guided by the recommendations of the Pharmacy Council of India and ESIC's specific requirements, within four months [p.3].

ESIC challenged these directions in Writ Petition No.8082/2016 before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 9, 2017, after ESIC submitted that the order had been complied with by creating three posts and promotional channels [p.4].

Subsequently, the applicants filed CP No.14/2016, alleging non-compliance with the CAT's May 6, 2015 order [p.4].

ESIC responded by stating they had proposed a three-level cadre structure (Pharmacist, Sr. Pharmacist, Chief Pharmacist) and drafted RRs, discussing them with the ESIC Pharmacists Association [p.4-5].

They attributed the delay in finalization to the Association's non-communication of consent [p.5].

On March 13, 2020, the CAT (in CP No.14/2016) found no justification for contempt, noting that ESIC had taken substantive action and that the Association's withholding of consent made the situation "unworkable" [p.6].

ESIC later, on February 19, 2021, notified a new four-level nomenclature for the Pharmacist Cadre (Pharmacist, Senior Pharmacist (NFG), Pharmacy Officer (NFG), and Senior Pharmacy Officer (NFG)), reportedly in parity with the Central Health Services (CHS) [p.12-13].

The current review application was filed by the review applicants (original applicants in the lis) seeking to review the CAT's March 13, 2020 order [p.3].

They argued there were errors apparent on the face of the record, contending that ESIC merely repackaged an old cadre structure from 2011, which did not account for current functional requirements or PCI recommendations, and that the order failed to appreciate ESIC's misleading conduct [p.6-10].

Some of the review applicants were not parties to the original CP No.14/2016 or OA No.2151/2014, which the review respondents raised as a preliminary objection to their locus standi [p.11, 33].

1. Whether the present Review Application is maintainable in law under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [p.27, 28].

2. Whether the review applicants, including those admittedly who were not parties to CP No.14/2016 and OA No.2151/2014, have locus standi to maintain the present Review Application [p.28, 33].

3. Whether the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CP No.14/2016 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review [p.28, 35].

4. Whether the Review Application is an attempt to re-agitate the merits of cadre restructuring, thereby converting review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction [p.28, 36].

5. Whether non-acceptance of the 7-level cadre structure allegedly recommended by the Pharmacy Council of India amounts to non-compliance of the Tribunal’s order dated 06.05.2015 [p.28, 37].

The Court applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal powers akin to review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) [p.28, 31].

Key principles guiding review jurisdiction, as established by the Supreme Court in *Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma* ((1974) 4 SCC 389), *K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India* (1997 (3) SCT 639), *State of W. B. Vs. Kamal Sengupta* ((2008) 8 SCC 612), *Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi* ((1997) 8 SCC 715), and *Lily Thomas v. Union of India* ((2000) 6 SCC 224), were invoked: review is permissible only for discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds, but not to re-examine the merits, act as an appeal, or substitute a view [p.29-32].

An error apparent must be self-evident, not requiring a long process of reasoning [p.31, 32, 35].

For locus standi in review, only directly aggrieved parties whose legal rights are affected can seek review, not indirect or academic interests, as per *Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad v. Union of India* (2018 SCC OnLine SC 2573) [p.33-34].

Contempt jurisdiction, as per *J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar* ((1996) 6 SCC 291), is limited to examining compliance and not re-adjudicating substantive rights or the adequacy of implementation [p.34].

The Tribunal first addressed the preliminary objections regarding maintainability and locus standi [p.28].

Applying the settled principles of review jurisdiction, the Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the review applicants primarily involved alleged inadequacy of the cadre structure, misinterpretation of PCI recommendations, and factual misrepresentation [p.32].

These issues required re-examination of merits and appreciation of evidence, which do not constitute "errors apparent on the face of the record" as defined by precedents like *Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury* ((1995) 1 SCC 170) [p.32, 35].

Thus, the review application failed to satisfy the statutory parameters of review jurisdiction.

Regarding locus standi, the Tribunal noted that some applicants were not parties to the original OA or CP, and review is typically confined to parties to the original proceeding or those directly and legally aggrieved [p.33].

Citing *Lily Thomas v. Union of India* and *Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai* ((2008) 15 SCC 513), it emphasized that only a person whose legal rights are directly affected and who had no prior opportunity to be heard may seek review [p.33-34].

Since specific service rights of new applicants were not adjudicated in the contempt proceeding, and contempt jurisdiction is limited to wilful disobedience rather than determining new civil rights, the third-party applicants lacked locus standi [p.34-35].

The Tribunal further held that the review application was an attempt to re-agitate the merits of cadre restructuring, policy considerations, and promotional avenues, which falls outside the scope of review and amounts to an appeal in disguise, as articulated in *Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai* [p.36].

Finally, concerning the non-acceptance of a 7-level cadre structure, the Tribunal reiterated that its original order dated May 6, 2015, specified that PCI recommendations were to "guide" ESIC, not be "mandatorily adopted" [p.37].

The contempt proceedings had established that ESIC had taken steps toward compliance, and the adequacy of these steps could not be reassessed in review or contempt jurisdiction [p.37].

It held that the RA was not maintainable as it failed to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated March 13, 2020, and constituted an attempt to convert review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction [p.35-36].

The Tribunal also found that some review applicants lacked locus standi because they were not parties to the original proceedings and their personal service rights were not directly adjudicated [p.35].

Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that its original order directed ESIC to be "guided" by PCI recommendations, not to mandatorily adopt the 7-level cadre structure, and noted that substantive compliance had been examined in the contempt proceedings [p.37].