ORDER

(By Circulation)

The review petitioner was applicant in OA No.3053 of 2014. The present Review Application is filed by her under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated

28.9.2015 passed by the Tribunal dismissing OA No.3053 of 2014.

2. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), 1995(1) SCC 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evidence and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured in a review proceedings.

3. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing, or arguments, or corre