CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH Review Application No.69 of 2025 in OA No. 060/1547/2017 This the 12^th day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER(J)

HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER(A)

Damodar Dass son of Sh. Dharam Chand, aged 59 years, working as Sr. Lab Attendant at Government Model Sr. Secondary School, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

…..…Applicant in OA/Review Applicant VERSUS

1. The Finance-cum-Education Secretary, U.T. Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2. The Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Chandigarh Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

...... Respondents O R D E R (in circulation)

By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.

1. This Review Application has been filed under under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908 read with Section 17 of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section 22 (3) (1) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for review of order dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Hon„ble Tribunal in OA No. 060/1547/2017.

2. The arguments in the OA No.060/1547/2017 were heard at length and the Original Application was dismissed vide order dated

06.10.2025 with the following directions:-

“31. In view of these facts, we find that the respondents acted within the ambit of the Recruitment Rules, Notifications, and administrative instructions, without any evidence of malafide intent or negligence that could have caused prejudice to the applicant. The Original Application, therefore, does not merit interference and is dismissed.”

3. The review applicant submits that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it proceeds on an incorrect factual premise regarding availability of vacancies under the 1% quota, ignores documentary evidence and the respondents‟ own admission that a post was reserved for the applicant, fails to consider the unjustified seven-year administrative delay in convening the DPC, and wrongly denies relief on the ground of superannuation, contrary to settled law that an employee‟s accrued right to consideration for promotion cannot be defeated by departmental delay and that notional promotion with consequential pensionary benefits is admissible even after retirement, rendering the findings legally unsustainable and vitiated.

4. This Tribunal is of the view that the above order was a detailed order given after hearing both the counsels as well as the pleadings on record. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon‟ble Apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: “a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised

only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it”. This Tribunal cannot review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the Hon‟ble Apex court in the said case that: Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty

given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment”.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:

“35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section

22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/ analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(iii) The expression “any oth