CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR R.A. No. 20/2025 IN O.A. No. 691/2024 Date of Order: 30th October, 2025 CORAM HON’BLE MR. D.S. MAHRA, MEMBER(JUDL.)

Sheeraz Ahmad Bhat S/o Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat R/o Wani Mohalla, Srandoo, District Kulgam – 192231.

……Review Applicant / Original Applicant By Advocate :

Mr. Bakhat Pervaiz VERSUS

1.Ghulam Nabi Yatoo, Director School Education, M.A. Road, Kothibagh, Srinagar – 190001.

2.Mohammad Shabir, Chief Education Officer, Mini Secretariat, Kulgam – 192231.

..…. Respondents By Advocate :-

Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

O R D E R (ORAL)

D.S. MAHRA, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01.The present Review Application has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant seeking review of order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in C.P. No. 52/2025 in O.A. No. 691/2024, whereby the contempt petition was closed in view of the compliance report filed by the respondents.

02.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the enquiry report forming the basis of the compliance affidavit is dated 23.06.2023, whereas the original order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 691/2024 was passed on 22.10.2024. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, an enquiry report predating the order under compliance cannot constitute a valid act of compliance. He contended that the contempt petition was closed on a mistaken assumption of fact, and that the order deserves to be reviewed and recalled.

03.I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the record.

04.It is evident that the Tribunal, while passing the order dated 03.09.2025, had duly taken note of the compliance affidavit wherein it was specifically stated that an enquiry committee had been constituted and that during the enquiry the applicant himself stated that he was not willing to join the post of MTS as he was planning to go abroad. Based on this factual position, the Tribunal recorded satisfaction that its directions stood complied with and closed the contempt petition with liberty to the applicant to seek such other remedy as may be available to him in law.

05.The limited scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits interference only in cases of an error apparent on the face of the record. A review is not an appeal in disguise, nor can it be used to reargue the case or seek a reappraisal of facts already considered.

06.The plea now raised by the applicant regarding the date of the enquiry report amounts, in substance, to a re- examination of facts which were already before the Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. No patent error, omission, or clerical mistake is discernible on the face of the record. The order dated 03.09.2025 was reasoned and self-contained, and it expressly preserved the applicant’s liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy, if so advised.

07.In view of the above, no ground is made out to warrant review or recall of the order dated 03.09.2025. The Review Application is, therefore, dismissed, while leaving it open to the applicant to avail such other remedies as may be permissible in law. No order as to costs.

(D.S. MAHRA) Member(Judl.)

30.10.2025 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI