Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi R.A. No.190/2025 M.A. No.5441/2025 in O.A. No.3205/2024 the 12th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Director (P)

22^nd Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre JLN Marg New Delhi – 110 002. ... Review applicant (Respondent No.1 of the OA No.3205)

Versus

1. Shri Dilip Ramnani S/o Shri Anand Ramnani R/o A-1/19, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi – 110 017. .... Review Respondent (applicant of the OA No.3205/2024)

2. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

Through its Secretary Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi – 110 003. ...Proforma respondent (Respondent No.2 of the OA No.3205/2024)

ORDER (By Circulation)

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicant seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.

3205/2024, whereby the Original Application was allowed with directions to treat the applicant as eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) by counting his ad-hoc service and to convene a Review DPC, along with consequential benefits.

2. The grounds urged in the Review Application primarily relate to alleged factual errors, misapplication of precedents, violation of Recruitment Rules, non-consideration of DoP&T instructions, and the factum of the applicant’s superannuation prior to issuance of promotion order. In essence, the Review Applicant seeks re-appreciation of facts and reconsideration of the conclusions reached by this Tribunal.

3. We have carefully perused the Review Application, the grounds raised therein, and the judgment sought to be reviewed. At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of review is extremely limited. A review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. Re-appreciation of evidence, re- interpretation of statutory provisions, or re-argument on merits does not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. The contentions now raised by the Review Applicant regarding counting of ad-hoc/CDC service, applicability of Recruitment Rules, DoP&T OMs, effect of superannuation, and reliance on judgments including NDMC v. K.C. Meena (SLP No. 23707/2019), were either specifically raised or were available to be raised during the original proceedings. This Tribunal, after due consideration of the pleadings and applicable law, consciously adjudicated upon these issues while passing the impugned judgment.

5. Mere disagreement with the findings recorded by this Tribunal or an assertion that another view is possible, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Review Applicant has failed to demonstrate any clerical, arithmetical, or manifest error which goes to the root of the matter.

6. It is trite law that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute one possible view with another or to reopen concluded issues under the guise of correction of an alleged error. The grounds raised in the present Review Application clearly amount to seeking rehearing of the Original Application, which is impermissible in law.

7. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the Review Application. The same is devoid of substance and does not disclose any ground falling within the permissible parameters of review.

8. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Accordingly MA No.5441/2025 also stands disposed of.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)

Member (A) Member(J)

/uma/