Review petition dismissed for notional promotion; no error shown. Limited scope of review process emphasized.

The Court dismissed the review petition seeking reconsideration of the order directing notional promotion for respondents, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that a review cannot be used to challenge subsequent changes in law or judgments by other benches. The review was deemed devoid of merits, and no costs were awarded, reaffirming the limited scope of the review process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the order dated 21st January 2020 in Writ Petition No.25502/2018.
2. Consideration of notional promotion for respondents.
3. Application of Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Error apparent on the face of the record.
5. Subsequent change of law as a ground for review.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of the order dated 21st January 2020 in Writ Petition No.25502/2018:
The review petition was filed to reconsider the order dated 21st January 2020, which allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and directed the review petitioners to ensure notional promotion of the respondents, similar to the case of D.B. Manival Raju. The original applications of the respondents were dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the High Court allowed their writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the notional promotion.

2. Consideration of notional promotion for respondents:
The respondents sought pro-forma/notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax and consequential retirement benefits. They contended that they were eligible for promotion as their names were included in the ACC-approved list for the panel year 2013-14. However, they retired before the promotion order could be issued. The Tribunal initially dismissed their applications, but the High Court later allowed their writ petition, granting the reliefs sought.

3. Application of Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The review petitioners argued that the order relied upon by the High Court (dated 21.6.2017 in the case of D.B. Manival Raju) was subsequently set aside by another Co-ordinate Bench on 16th March 2021. They contended that this subsequent judgment constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying a review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Error apparent on the face of the record:
The Court examined whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 21st January 2020. It was concluded that the review petitioners did not demonstrate such an error. The Court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should only address patent errors. The subsequent change in law or judgment by another Co-ordinate Bench does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. Subsequent change of law as a ground for review:
The review petitioners sought review based on the subsequent judgment dated 16th March 2021, which set aside the order relied upon by the High Court in its 21st January 2020 decision. The Court held that a change in law or a subsequent judgment by a Co-ordinate Bench does not justify a review. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly states that a subsequent decision of a superior court in another case is not a ground for review.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the review petitioners did not make out a case for review of the order dated 21st January 2020. The review petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs. The Court reiterated that the power of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case or address changes in law subsequent to the original judgment.

---