Fresh application maintainable despite prior Tribunal decision; review is limited and not a substitute for merits consideration.

Persons affected by an earlier Tribunal decision are not barred from filing a fresh application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act merely because they were not parties to that earlier case, where they challenge the seniority list and the consequential impact on their rights. In service matters, an earlier decision may operate as a judgment in rem, so the Tribunal must consider the fresh application on merits and treat any concluded issue as precedent. If the Tribunal disagrees with the earlier view, the proper course is reference to a larger Bench. Review is a limited remedy subject to statutory time limits and restricted grounds, and is not a substitute for a fresh challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 filed by persons affected by an earlier Tribunal decision, but not parties to that decision, could be rejected as not maintainable, and whether the proper remedy was a review petition instead of a fresh application.

Analysis: The affected employees were not seeking to set aside the earlier judgment directly, but were challenging the seniority list and the consequential effect of the earlier decision on their rights. A prior Tribunal decision may operate beyond the parties and, in service matters, may have the character of a judgment in rem. In such a situation, the later application cannot be rejected merely because the applicant was not a party to the earlier proceeding. The Tribunal was bound to deal with the fresh application according to law and, if the issue stood concluded by an earlier decision, to treat that decision as precedent. If the Tribunal disagreed with the earlier view, the proper course was to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The remedy of review is limited, subject to the statutory period and restricted grounds, and is not equivalent to an appeal.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application as not maintainable was erroneous. The matter had to be considered on merits, and the affected persons were not confined only to a review remedy.

---