IMPORTANT POINTS:
• The Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v. The Government of Andra Pradesh, 1964 KHC 570 has succinctly stated the distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent".
• An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII R.1 of the Code. It is also held that it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII R.1 and that, a review petition cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000 KHC 536 the Apex Court held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of the mistake, but not to substitute a view.

V.G. Arun, J.

1. The review petitioners, who are the respondents in O. P. (CAT) Nos. 176 and 190 of 2018 seek review of the judgment on the following grounds:

"A. The judgment dated 10/04/2019 in O. P. (CAT) No. 176 of 2018 of this Hon'ble Court is vitiated by manifest errors of law and facts on the face of the record and if not corrected in review, would result in great injustice and inequitable consequences and hence is liable to be reviewed and recalled to prevent irremediable injustice.

B. In the judgment under review, this Hon'ble Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of fact and law and arrived at a conclusion which is rendered on wrong appreciation of law laid down by the Apex Court which amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and it is a valid ground for review.

C. In the judgment under review this Hon'ble Court found that 'transfer' falls within the expression 'conditions of service'. The decision in Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955 : 1986 KHC 655 was cited only in support of the proposition that the ratio of the above decision is that 'transfer' is an implied condition of service and falls outside the Recruitment Rules which ends with the completion of selection. Annexure R-3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 and in Annexure R-4 Recruitment Rules, 2016 there is an express recital that "The President hereby makes the following Rules for regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise), Inspector (Preventive Officer) and Inspector (Examiner) in the Commissionerates under the control of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance". Therefore, Annexure R-3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 and Annexure R-4 Recruitment Rules, 2016 were issued for regulating the method of recruitment to the posts mentioned therein and they do not govern the terms and conditions of service after appointments to those posts. Necessarily, the power of transfer is not traceable to the Recruitment Rules. The power of transfer falls within the expression 'conditions of service' which are post appointment terms and conditions. Necessarily, R.4(ii) of Annexure R-3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 do not relate to Inter-Commissionerate transfer which is a condition of service after appointment. R.4(ii) provides for 'absorption' of person holding the same or comparable posts in another Commissionerate who came on deputation to be made on regular basis. The holding of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the judgment under review that "It is not in dispute that Annexure R-3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 contained a provision enabling ICT" is an erroneous assumption of the specific averment and pleading made in the Counter Affidavit in OP(CAT) No. 176 of 1018 and the arguments made at the time of final hearing. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit in OP(CAT) No. 176 of 1018 (which was heard along with OP(CAT) No. 190 of 1018) and the averment and pleading made therein is that Annexure R-3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 only enabled 'absorption' of persons who came on deputation to another Commissionerate which falls within the gamut of 'recruitment' and R.4(ii) of Annexure A-3 does not at all relate to or govern Inter-Commissionerate Transfer. Therefore, the holding that "It is not in dispute that Annexure R3 Recruitment Rules, 2002 contained a provision enabling ICT" runs counter to the specific pleading and arguments addressed and is an error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be reviewed and re-called. The further holding that "It is an admitted fact that no such provision is included in the Recruitment Rules, 2016 and on the other hand, R.5 of Annexure R-4 specifically stipulate that each cadre controlling authority (CCA) shall have its own separate cadre, unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Any Inter-Commissionerate Transfer will violate unique identity of each cadre envisaged under R.5 of Annexure R-4 Recruitment Ru