Review petitions cannot re-argue cases or act as appeals.

Sanjeev Kumar (Review Applicant) filed a Review Application under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 19 and Section 22(3)(f) of the CAT Act, 1985, to review the judgment/order dated 06.01.2026 in O.A. No. 2016/2020.

The original O.A. challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Manager (Traffic) by the Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent).

The advertisement for the post required "at least 3 years experience of supervisory duties in a Traffic Department of a State Road Transport Corporation/Undertaking or some other important Road Transport concern".

The Tribunal's original order dated 06.01.2026 dismissed his O.A., finding that his previous employers—M/s. Yadav Tours & Travels and M/s. Kamlax Polytex (P) Ltd.—were not "important Road Transport concerns" matching the reputation and fleet strength of State Road Transport Corporations, applying the "Ejusdem Generis" principle.

The Tribunal also observed that the facts were distinguishable from O.A. No. 158/2020, *Shri Raman v. DTC*, which the applicant had relied upon.

The Review Applicant contended that he was similarly, and even better, placed than the applicant in *Raman's* case, where the Tribunal had held that subjective criteria not mentioned in recruitment rules could not be introduced post-selection.

He argued that his experience was broader, longer, and involved higher responsibility, and his employers had PF registration, unlike in *Raman's* case.

He further argued that the advertisement did not prescribe minimum fleet size, and applying such a condition post-facto amounted to changing the rules of the game.

The Tribunal, in the review, reiterated that the facts and circumstances of the instant O.A. were different from *Raman's* case because in *Raman's* case, the employer had responded satisfactorily to DTC's queries, whereas in Sanjeev Kumar's case, his employers had not provided a suitable and satisfactory reply.

Whether the judgment/order dated 06.01.2026 in O.A. No. 2016/2020 suffered from patent errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 19 and Section 22(3)(f) of the CAT Act, 1985.

Whether the Review Applicant was identically or better placed than the applicant in O.A. No. 158/2020 (*Raman v. DTC*), thereby implying hostile discrimination due to unequal treatment.

Whether the Tribunal's original decision to reject the Review Applicant's candidature based on the subjective assessment of his employers as not being "important road transport concerns" constituted an error given the lack of specific criteria in the recruitment rules or advertisement.

The court primarily applied Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which govern the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders on grounds similar to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

It invoked the principle that review jurisdiction is for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not for re-arguing a case or acting as an appeal.

The Tribunal also referenced the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta and another* (2008 (3) AISLJ 209) on the power of tribunals to review their own orders.

The original order had relied on the legal principle of "Ejusdem Generis" to interpret the essential qualification of experience in an "important Road Transport concern".

The Tribunal found that the Review Applicant's petition did not introduce any new points of facts or law that were not previously considered in the original O.A.

The original decision dated 06.01.2026 was based on a factual finding that the Review Applicant's previous employers, M/s. Yadav Tours & Travels and M/s. Kamlax Polytex (P) Ltd., did not meet the criteria of an "important Road Transport concern" when assessed under the "Ejusdem Generis" principle, and furthermore, these employers had not provided satisfactory replies to the DTC's queries, differentiating his case from *Raman's*.

The Tribunal explicitly stated that the facts and circumstances of the instant O.A. were clearly distinguishable from *Raman's* case, rejecting the Review Applicant's claim of being identically or better placed.

The arguments raised in the review petition, such as the absence of a minimum fleet size in the rules or the presence of PF registration for his employers, were considered attempts to re-argue the case on its merits or appeal the decision, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded there was no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material to warrant exercising review jurisdiction, consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that there was no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law, nor any new points of facts or law raised that were not previously considered.

The applicant's attempt to re-argue the case or appeal the original order under the guise of a review was not permissible under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and relevant precedents.

No order as to costs was made.