Rectification cannot rest on a later amendment or circular change when no apparent error existed in the original record.

A subsequent budgetary amendment and any alleged withdrawal of a Board circular could not support rectification where those points were not raised during the original hearing. The Tribunal held that a later change in law or administration does not, by itself, create a mistake apparent on the face of the record in an earlier final order. Because no corresponding submission or relevant amendment had been advanced when the appeal was decided, the rectification plea failed. The application was therefore not maintainable on the ground urged and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could be entertained on the basis of a subsequent budgetary amendment and the alleged withdrawal of the Board circular, and whether any mistake apparent on the face of the record existed in the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The amendment relied upon was made after the Tribunal had passed the original order. No contention regarding withdrawal of the circular or any corresponding amendment in the relevant provisions had been advanced during the hearing of the appeal. The absence of such a submission at the earlier stage meant that the original order could not be said to suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. A later change in law could not be used to convert a concluded order into one containing a rectifiable mistake.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable on the ground urged and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to revise its earlier final order because the alleged defect did not constitute an apparent mistake in the record.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent amendment or later administrative change, not raised at the time of the original hearing, does not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record for rectification purposes.

---