The scope of a review application is limited to the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to a rehearing of the matter on merits or the re-appreciation of facts and submissions already adjudicated.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The present Review Application has been filed by the review applicants seeking review of the judgment dated 18.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 2951/2022 and connected matters.

The principal contention of the review applicants is that during the pendency of the OAs, a Circular dated 29.12.2023 was issued pursuant to which the applicants were promoted as AAOs in the offices where they were serving on deputation, and that this materially altered the nature of the lis. However, a perusal of the judgment dated 18.12.2025 shows that the Tribunal examined the legality of the impugned orders dated 22.03.2022, 08.09.2022 and 09.09.2022 and the denial or delay of absorption from the date of deputation. The core issue adjudicated was whether, under the long-standing deputation-cum-absorption policy and in view of the judicial pronouncements, the applicants were entitled to be absorbed from the date they joined on deputation. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and rival submissions, held that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in withholding absorption and in subsequently restricting vacancies. The subsequent Circular dated 29.12.2023 does not efface the cause of action which arose from the earlier impugned orders. The judgment granted relief on the basis that the applicants were entitled to absorption from the date of deputation under the prevailing policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any failure to consider a material development which would alter the foundation of the decision.

The review applicants have further contended that after accepting promotion pursuant to the Circular dated 29.12.2023, the applicants were estopped from claiming deemed absorption from the date of deputation and that the principle of approbate and reprobate applies. This submission is, in substance, a reiteration of the defence that the applicants were taken purely on deputation and had no enforceable right of absorption. The judgment dated 18.12.2025 has, in paragraphs 4 to 10, recorded the stand of the respondents that the applicants were only deputationists and had no vested right to absorption, and has specifically rejected that contention. The Tribunal found that the entire scheme under which the applicants appeared in the SAS (Civil Audit) Examination was one of deputation-cum-absorption, consistently followed in earlier batches, and that legitimate expectation had accrued in their favour. Thus, the defence now sought to be re-agitated in the guise of estoppel was already considered and adjudicated. A review cannot be invoked to re-argue the same issue in a different form.

The contention that, if aggrieved by the Circular dated 29.12.2023, the applicants ought to have separately challenged the same, also does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The relief granted by the Tribunal flows from its finding that the earlier impugned orders denying or delaying absorption were illegal and arbitrary. The subsequent promotion orders cannot retrospectively validate an action which has already been held to be contrary to policy and constitutional principles. This aspect does not demonstrate any patent error in the reasoning of the Tribunal.

The review applicants have also urged that the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training was not adverted to. However, the judgment records a categorical finding that the deputation in question was part of a structured deputation-cum-absorption scheme, consistently implemented since 2004 and reaffirmed in 2018–2019, and that earlier batches were absorbed under identical conditions. In view of this finding, the premise that the initial deputation did not contemplate absorption was not accepted by the Tribunal. Merely because a particular document is not discussed in detail does not constitute an error apparent when the core issue has been a