Review proceedings cannot be used for rehearing merits or reappreciating facts absent an error apparent on record.

The petitioner filed a review petition against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in Misc. Petition No. 3457 of 2024.

The petitioner, an employee of the Indian Railways, had been denied appointment to the post of Assistant Materials Manager (AMM) under the 30% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota despite participating in the selection process.

The primary grievance was that the respondents failed to count the petitioner’s past regular service rendered in an erstwhile department/division for the purpose of determining the five-year eligibility criteria for promotion in the transferred cadre.

The petitioner argued that while request transfers might result in bottom seniority, past service must count toward eligibility for higher promotion.

1. Whether the court’s previous order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the calculation of the five-year eligibility period for the LDCE quota after a mutual transfer.

2. Whether the non-consideration of the judgment in M.P. No. 198/2024 and the precedent of *Renu Mullick v. Union of India* constitutes a valid ground for review.

The Court applied the principles governing the power of review as established under the Code of Civil Procedure and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

It relied on *Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi*, holding that review is not a rehearing on merits.

It further cited *Parsoni Devi v. State of Bihar*, which restricts review to cases of "error apparent on the face of the record," patent mistakes, or manifest injustice, excluding changes in law or alternative interpretations.

Regarding Railway service, the Court referenced Rules 310 and 221 of IREM Vol-I, which govern seniority and service counting upon mutual exchange transfers.

The Court observed that the initial order dated 27.11.2025 had already considered that the AMM post was advertised specifically for those having a lien in the West Central Railway (WCR) with five years of service in Level-6 as of 01.01.2023.

The Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge these specific recruitment conditions at the time of the advertisement or in the original application (O.A.) and was thus bound by them.

Applying Rule 310 and Rule 221 of IREM Vol-I, the Court reasoned that in mutual transfers, the petitioner’s seniority was tied to the lower of the two employees exchanged; since the petitioner accepted placement in the seniority list from 01.11.2018 without objection, the five-year service requirement was correctly calculated from that date.

The Court found that the petitioner was seeking a "re-appreciation of facts" and a "re-hearing," which exceeds the narrow scope of review jurisdiction.

It concluded that the petitioner failed to make out a case for interference as the previous judgment had duly considered the relevant rules and facts.

The High Court affirmed that the petitioner’s eligibility was correctly determined based on their seniority placement in the WCR following the mutual transfer.