Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error; new evidence cannot reopen findings, and children of a valid second marriage retain eligibility.

Review jurisdiction is confined to patent error on the face of the record and cannot be used as a rehearing on merits or to introduce new documents or factual pleas not raised earlier without due diligence. Applying that standard, the court rejected reliance on alleged new material to reopen the concluded findings. It also held that where the deceased government servant's second marriage took place only after the death of the first , the marriage could not be treated as void on that basis, and the respondent could not be denied compassionate appointment merely as a child of that marriage. The review application therefore failed, and the earlier relief remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review applicants had disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any permissible ground for review, and whether new documents and new factual pleas could be introduced at the review stage; (ii) whether the second marriage of the deceased government servant was void, so as to deny compassionate appointment to the respondent as a child born of that marriage.

Issue (i): whether the review applicants had disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any permissible ground for review, and whether new documents and new factual pleas could be introduced at the review stage.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to patent errors and is not a substitute for rehearing on merits. A plea that requires a long drawn process of reasoning does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The alleged statement of the respondent's mother and the application attributed to the deceased's brother were not raised in the original writ proceedings or in the writ appeal, and the applicants did not show due diligence for not producing them earlier. Such materials cannot be used in review to fill gaps or patch up weak points in the case.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out on the basis of error apparent or alleged new material.

Issue (ii): whether the second marriage of the deceased government servant was void, so as to deny compassionate appointment to the respondent as a child born of that marriage.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the deceased married the respondent's mother only after the death of the first wife. On that factual basis, the marriage could not be treated as void. The reasoning also proceeded on the principle that children born of a void or voidable marriage retain legitimacy for legal purposes, and the plea that the respondent was ineligible for compassionate appointment on that ground was not accepted.

Conclusion: The objection that the respondent was disqualified as a child of a void second marriage was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review application failed on maintainability and merits, and the prior judgment granting relief to the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review can be granted only for an apparent error or other narrowly recognised grounds, and new facts or documents not raised earlier cannot be introduced to reopen concluded findings; a second marriage after the death of the first spouse is not void on that ground, and the legitimacy of children is not denied for the purpose considered here.

---