Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi M.A. No.3909/2023 in R. A. No.147/2023 in O.A. No.2532/2019 This the 09^th day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Manish, Age–23 years S/o Sunil Kumar VPO–Garhi Ruthal, Tehsil–Ateli Mahendragarh, Haryana – 123021.

… Review Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)

Versus

1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Staff Selection Commission Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.

2. The Regional Director (NR)

Govt. of India Staff Selection Commission Block No. 12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.

3. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India

9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg New Delhi – 110124.

…Review Respondents ORDER (ORAL)

Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:

Heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. K. M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Vide order dated 19.01.2021, this Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.2532/2019, granting liberty to the applicant to make a representation, and directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.

3. The applicant has filed the present Review Application seeking review of the said order. As there is delay, the applicant has also filed M.A. No.3909/2023 seeking condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 19.01.2021 has already been implemented. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the applicant filed his representation, and the same stands disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law.

5. It is further submitted that if the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed on his representation, the proper remedy is to file a fresh OA, and the present Review Application is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an interim order in O.A. No.2532/2019 had permitted him to appear in the skill test in English medium, and he accordingly appeared. He states that, however, the applicant’s result was kept in a sealed cover.

7. It is argued that the final order dated 19.01.2021 did not record this aspect of the interim direction, and therefore that part of the order requires review/correction.

8. We find that the interim order forms part of the record of the OA proceedings. For that purpose, no Review Application is required. The grievance raised by the applicant is essentially against the order disposing of his representation pursuant to the liberty granted. Such grievance can appropriately be agitated in a fresh OA, wherein all issues, including those urged before us, may be

9. The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant can be examined at the time of hearing of such fresh OA, if and when filed.

10. In view of the above, M.A. No.3909/2023 as well as R.A. No.147/2023 stand disposed of. No costs.

(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)

Member (A) Chairman /yy/