O R D E R

Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member This M.A.No.350/323/2024 has been filed to recall/modify the order dated

27.02.2024 passed in C.P.No.350/5/2022 arising out of O.A.No.350/1190/2018.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon one Railway Board’s Circular dated 28.11.2016 regarding “Consolidated Guidelines for Personnel Officers, Paper Setters & Evaluators of Question Papers of written examinations held as part of 70% Selection/30% LDCE for Promotion from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’” and submitted that the answer sheets should be preserved for a period of one year or until the panel exhausted. The said circular was not placed in the original application.

3. However, this Tribunal has considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the applicant for Para 3(vi) of the circular dated 28.11.2016 with regard to General Instructions for maintaining the record and after considering the Compliance Affidavit dropped the contempt proceedings on the ground that directions given by this Tribunal in the O.A. was complied with by passing a speaking order dated 03.12.2021.

4. We have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the applicant and gone through the provisions of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 supported by Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 and do find any provision with regard to review/modify/recall of the order passed by this Tribunal in contempt proceeding which was dropped on merit. The Learned Counsel for the applicant also failed to provide the relevant provision of the rules under which this Court can exercise its power under Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992. The power to review in contempt petition has been discussed by Full Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1111/2000 (Satyapal Singh,Son of Sri Ganga….. Vs. I.M.G. Khan), an excerpt from which is quoted herein below:- "14. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad consisting of Hon'ble Binod Kumar Roy and Hon'ble P.K. Jain. JJ in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and others reported in 1998 (33) ALR page 456- while following the aforesaid full bench of Shivragi (supra), it was observed that it is a settled law that appeal/ revision/review are creation of statute and no litigant has got an inherent right to prefer appeal/ revision or review. It also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), wherein it has been clearly laid down that in absence of any power,review is impermissible.

15. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has recently (by its order dated 17.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.66/2013 Mahavir Prasad Vs. CAT Lucknow and Others) upheld an order dated 13.9.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench in Civil Contempt Petition No. 22/2009 by observing that recall/review application is not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that virtually recalling of the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench will amount to review its earlier decision which was passed with the findings on merit (as is the situation in the present case. Therefore, unless provided under the Act, no application for review/recall can be moved. It was also specifically observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for review of a judgment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

24. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is our considered view that recall application is not maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits. We would like to add that Tribunal should refrain itself from dismissing a contempt case for default, particularly after issuance of show cause notice as discussed above. However, if such an order has been passed by a Tribunal, the absence of vesting/conferment of power of recall/review shall not come in the way of recalling because of such order bei