JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned C.G.C. for the Union of India.

2. The present review application has been filed for review of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14112 of 2024 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 issued under a Special Recruitment Drive for Persons with Disabilities for appointment to the post of Cameraman Grade-II, the petitioner, being a 40% disabled candidate and possessing a Diploma in Cinematography from a recognized institute, applied within the prescribed time and was issued admit card and permitted to appear in the examination provisionally subject to production of a graduation certificate. Although the essential qualification in the advertisement provided for degree or diploma in cinematography from a recognized institute along with experience, the Opposite Parties, by letter dated 02.02.2016, required the petitioner to produce proof of equivalence of his diploma with a degree. Aggrieved, the petitioner initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No. 524 of 2016, which was disposed of on 21.07.2016 with liberty to the Opposite parties to verify the genuineness of his qualification. Thereafter, the Opposite parties rejected his candidature vide order dated 05.10.2016 on the ground of non- fulfillment of the requirement of possessing a degree. The petitioner immediately challenged the said rejection by filing O.A., which was registered as O.A. No. 7 of 2017 within limitation; however, due to non-availability of the Division Bench at Patna, the matter was transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi on 12.10.2018 and re-registered as O.A. No. 3923 of 2018, which was subsequently permitted to be withdrawn on 20.09.2023 with liberty to file a fresh application. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 158 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 29.05.2024 on the ground of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14112 of 2024, which also came to be dismissed by judgment dated 06.02.2025 primarily on the ground that the challenge to the rejection order dated 05.10.2016 was barred by limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that he had, in fact, challenged the rejection order promptly within time and had been continuously prosecuting his remedy before the Tribunal, but such material facts, though available on record and even reflected in the pleadings of the respondents, could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further the case of the petitioner that he fulfills the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, there being no degree course in cinematography in India, and despite having been declared successful, his candidature was illegally rejected, causing serious prejudice to him.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the facts and events enumerated herein above submitted that the petitioner holds an appropriate degree of Diploma in Cinematography and had appeared in the examination held on 24.01.2016 for the post of Cameraman Grade-II pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2015. It is submitted that on 02.02.2016 he was called to furnish documentary proof that his diploma in Cinematography is equivalent to the degree sought in the aforesaid advertisement. Learned senior counsel submitted that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 524 of 2016, which was disp