Scope of review excludes re-argument of issues concluded by final judicial determination.

The six applicants were terminated from their services on 08.01.2018 following the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.10.2017 regarding a 2007–08 recruitment process

The applicants challenged these terminations in OA No. 4127/2023, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.02.2026

The applicants filed the present Review Application (RA) asserting that the Tribunal failed to consider that the termination violated principles of natural justice and that similarly situated employees in OA No. 3279/2018 had been reinstated

They further argued that the liberty granted by the High Court on 26.08.2022 to pursue legal remedies created a fresh cause of action, exempting the case from res judicata

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or new material evidence justifying a review of the order dated 12.02.2026 under the Administrative Tribunals Act

2. Whether the subsequent termination orders and parity with other judicial pronouncements constitute a fresh cause of action that prevents the application of res judicata

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which restrict the scope of review to "errors apparent on the face of the record"

The court relied on the doctrine of res judicata and the principle of finality of litigation, establishing that a review is not a "rehearing on merits" or a tool to reconsider issues conclusively settled by higher courts

The Tribunal found that the applicants were attempting to re-argue the same merits that had already attained finality through multiple rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court

The Tribunal reasoned that the termination order dated 08.01.2018 was merely a "consequential action" following the Supreme Court’s determination, and thus did not constitute a fresh cause of action

Regarding the claim of parity with OA No. 3279/2018, the Tribunal noted that parity figures were not established and, regardless, such grounds cannot be introduced at the review stage if they were already considered or available during the original hearing

Since the applicants failed to produce any new material that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence, the legal threshold for review was not met

It held that the grounds raised were a repetition of previously rejected arguments and that the dispute regarding the 2007–08 recruitment had reached ultimate finality

The Tribunal affirmed that the decision of the respondents dated 04.04.2022 (passed pursuant to High Court directions) had already been upheld in the original OA and could not be re-agitated