O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J):

Heard learned counsel for the review applicants, opposite party and perused the records.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Review Applicants have prayed for review of the order dated 23.11.2020 passed in OA No. 267 of 2017 in re: Shalu Singh vs. UoI &

Ors. whereby OA has been disposed of as under:-

“6. Keeping in view the above, as the substantive matter in all theses has attained finality we deem it fit and proper to issue similar orders for these cases. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 06.06.2017 and 18.05.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the applicants to their posts with all consequential benefits, i.e. full TRCA for the period they have been kept out of service because of the impugned orders. In case their places have been filled up by other persons, then the applicants shall be accommodated in any other vacant post and brought back to their original post at the earliest opportunity. This order should be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the respondents to proceed against the applicants. Where so warranted, under Rule 4(3), or under Rule 9 and 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, in the light of the earlier referred to order dated 14.07.2017 of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA 742/2016 as upheld and confirmed by the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate and consider the right of incumbents, who were wrongly left by the appointing authority in the selection process, were adversely affected by not arraying them as necessary parties.

Further pleaded that the Tribunal also failed to appreciate and consider that at no point of time the report submitted by 5-members committee was under dispute and neither the same was challenged, nor the same was put to test by this Tribunal itself, therefore, any action taken in pursuance of the said report cannot be declared to be against the rules and per se illegal as such the order dated 23.11.2020 may be reviewed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

6. In the matter of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:

“16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

7. From the perusal of aforesaid legal proposition of law propounded by Hon’ble Suprem