REVIEW JURISDICTION: TRIBUNALS CANNOT RE-HEAR MATTERS ON MERITS OR CORRECT ERRONEOUS ORDERS.

The Review Applicant (Davinder Kaur), a Lab Technician, sought a review of an order dated 12.12.2025 in O.A. No.465/2019 concerning her claim for regularization and parity of pay.

The original order rejected her claim for regularization, finding her engagements to be intermittent, ad-hoc, and, since 2018, explicitly outsourced through M/s BECIL.

The Tribunal noted that a direct employer-employee relationship was absent, as AIIMS did not make direct appointments to a sanctioned post, pay salary from the regular establishment, or exercise administrative/disciplinary control in its own right for outsourced engagements.

It was also observed that her appointments were intermittent stints from 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, and 2018 (through BECIL), with a significant gap between 2007 and 2018, and across different departments and posts, without 10 years of continuous service in the same cadre.

The original order also noted the respondent's allegation that her diploma was not a recognized qualification at the relevant time for Laboratory Technician.

However, the Tribunal directed the respondents to re-examine her claim for remuneration during periods of direct ad-hoc engagement by AIIMS, specifically citing Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, and a pay revision on 18.12.1998 (Annexure A-4), and to pass a reasoned order.

Whether the present Review Application, based on alleged discovery of new evidence (Note Sheets & RTI records), suppression of material facts by respondents, claim of parity with regularized employees, proof of continuous control and supervision by AIIMS, legal precedent, failure of counsel, error apparent regarding eligibility/regularization in 2014, updated qualifications, discrimination, error in applying the "control test," inconsistency regarding "intermittent service," frontline service as a ground for equitable relief, and the arrangement being "sham and camouflage," warrants a review of the order dated 12.12.2025.

The Central Administrative Tribunal's power to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin to that of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others* (1974) 4 SCC 389, established that review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence (with due diligence), a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous ground, but not on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, as that is the province of appeal.

*K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India* (1997 (3) SCT 639), emphasized that the right of review is available on limited grounds similar to Order 47 CPC, not as an appeal, to ensure finality of decisions.

*Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn. & Ors.* (2007) 9 SCC 369, reiterated that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over its own judgment in the name of review.

*State of W. B. v. Kamal Sengupta* (2008) 8 SCC 612, a key precedent cited by the applicant, further clarified that an error must be self-evident, not discoverable by a long process of reasoning, and an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of review.

It also specified that "new or important matter or evidence" must not have been within the party's knowledge despite due diligence.

*Subhash v. State of Maharashtra and Another* (2002 (4) SCT 608 (SC)), reiterated that the Tribunal can interfere only if the error is plain and apparent, not by re-examining the matter as if it were an original application.

The Tribunal examined the grounds for review against the established legal principles governing review jurisdiction, particularly those outlined by the Supreme Court.

The Review Applicant presented grounds such as discovery of new evidence (Note Sheets and RTI records), alleged suppression of facts by respondents, claims of parity with other regularized employees, evidence of continuous control by AIIMS, failure of previous counsel, and allegations of error apparent on the face of the record regarding eligibility and intermittent service.

However, the Tribunal applied the strict interpretation of review jurisdiction, which prohibits a rehearing of the matter on merits or functioning as an appellate court.

It found that the grounds raised by the Review Applicant, in substance, sought a re-argument of the original case afresh.

The principles from *Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmma*, *K. Ajit Babu*, *Gopal Singh*, *Kamal Sengupta*, and *Subhash* consistently limit review to specific grounds like discovery of truly new evidence or apparent errors, not a re-evaluation of the merits or an attempt to correct a decision believed to be erroneous.

The Tribunal implicitly found that the arguments presented by the applicant, while detailed, did not meet the high threshold of "error apparent on the face of the record" or "discovery of new and important matter" that could not have been produced earlier with due diligence, but rather constituted an attempt to re-litigate issues already decided or argue points not sufficiently highlighted previously.

The grounds raised by the Review Applicant were deemed to be an attempt to seek a rehearing of the matter on merits, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review.

Consequently, the Review Application was dismissed in circulation.