Review jurisdiction not exercisable to re-argue a case or introduce new points.

The applicant, Shri Manik Mandal, a retired Deputy Secretary (65 years old), filed a Review Application under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 19 and Section 22 (3) (f) of the CAT Act, 1985, seeking to review the judgment and order dated December 18, 2025, in O.A No. 1522/2024.

The original order dismissed the applicant's OA, stating that although the respondents admitted a delay in preparing the Select List of Directors, this delay was bona fide due to the arduous and cumbersome procedure of collecting vigilance status and other service particulars for 95 officers.

The original order further held that promotions cannot be accorded to a government servant after retirement for posts on which they never worked, citing *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others*.

The applicant contended that the order dated December 18, 2025, suffered from patent errors on its face and ignored available records.

He also argued that his case was covered by *Bishen Dass vs. Secretary-DoPT* (OA No. 2451/2017) and *UOI vs. Baljit Kaur* (WP (C) No. 17226/2022), where the Tribunal's decisions were upheld by higher courts.

Whether the judgment and order dated December 18, 2025, in O.A No. 1522/2024, suffers from patent errors apparent on the face of the record, miscarriage of justice, or the discovery of new material sufficient to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction.

Whether the applicant, having retired from service, has an absolute, vested, indefeasible, or inalienable right to promotion to the post of Director where he had not assumed duties prior to retirement.

Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 19 and Section 22 (3) (f) of the CAT Act, 1985, which pertains to the power of review.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope of review jurisdiction, particularly that a review is not an appeal in disguise.

The judgment in *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others* (Diary No. 43488 of 2023), dated November 27, 2024, which states that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right to promotion itself, and promotion becomes effective only upon the assumption of duties on the promotion post, not on the date of vacancy or recommendation.

*UOI vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160* on the limits of review powers.

*State of West Bengal & others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008 (3) AISLJ 209)* on the limits of review powers.

The Tribunal found that the review petition did not introduce any new points of facts or law that were not previously considered.

It concluded that its decision in OA No. 1522/2024 was based on proper fact-finding and that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant's reliance on *Bishen Dass* and *Baljit Kaur* by reiterating its unwavering adherence to the ratio of *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others*.

This precedent firmly establishes that promotion is effective only upon assuming duties in the promoted post and not retrospectively, even if recommended before retirement.

Since the applicant had retired and had not assumed duties on the promotional post of Director before retirement, the Tribunal held that he had no absolute right to promotion.

The court viewed the review application as an attempt to re-argue the case, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction as per Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC, as well as Supreme Court precedents.

It held that there was no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction, and no new facts or law were presented by the applicant.

The Tribunal affirmed its commitment to the principle that promotion only becomes effective upon assuming duties on the promotional post, and therefore, the applicant, having retired without assuming the duties of a Director, had no absolute right to such promotion.

The Tribunal stated that the applicant was re-arguing the case under the garb of a review application, which is impermissible.

There was no order as to costs.