Routine administrative delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation, and review is impermissible for re-arguing settled matters.

The Review Applicants (Ministry of Railways and others) filed a Review Application seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 17.09.2024 in O.A. No. 117/2017

Along with the review, they filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 2966/2025) seeking condonation of a 230-day delay in filing the review

The Review Applicants attributed the delay to administrative reasons, including heavy workload and procedural approvals

The respondent, Sushil, was a candidate for a Group 'D' appointment

The Tribunal noted that the Review Applicants were duly represented during the original proceedings and were aware of the order

1. Whether the administrative reasons and procedural approvals cited by the Review Applicants constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning a delay of 230 days

2. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or new material warranting a review of the order dated 17.09.2024

The Tribunal applied the legal principle of "sufficient cause" regarding the condonation of delay, establishing that negligence, administrative delays, or routine official procedures are insufficient grounds for condoning substantial delay

Regarding the scope of review, the Tribunal relied on the principle that the power of review is extremely limited and cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise"

A review is only permissible if there is a patent error on the face of the record or discovery of new material that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence; re-arguing the matter is impermissible

The Tribunal analyzed the application for condonation of delay and found the reasons provided—administrative workload and procedural hurdles—to be general and insufficient to justify the 230-day lapse

It observed that since the Applicants were represented in the original proceedings, the delay reflected a lack of due diligence

On the merits of the review, the Tribunal found no "error apparent on the face of the record"

It reasoned that the Applicants were attempting to re-litigate the merit position and cut-off marks of the candidate, issues which had already been adjudicated in the original order

The Tribunal concluded that the Review Application was merely an attempt to re-argue the case, which exceeds the limited scope of review jurisdiction

Consequently, the Review Application (R.A. No. 118/2025) was dismissed both as barred by limitation and on the grounds that it disclosed no merit for interference with the original order dated 17.09.2024

No order was made as to costs