Limited review jurisdiction bars rehearing on merits; review order set aside for exceeding scope

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and does not permit a fresh appraisal of the merits or a new substantive basis for decision. The Court found that the impugned review order treated the matter as if the special appeal were being reheard, and in substance reversed the earlier appellate order by adopting a new position on payment of salary to teachers subject-wise. That amounted to rehearing and rewriting the appellate judgment, which lay beyond the limited scope of review. The review order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review order could be sustained when it re-examined the merits of the special appeal instead of correcting only an error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an obvious error visible on the face of the record and does not permit a fresh appraisal of the merits or the adoption of a new substantive basis for decision. The impugned review order dealt with the matter as though it were hearing the special appeal afresh and in substance reversed the earlier appellate order by taking a new stand on payment of salary to teachers subject-wise. Such an exercise amounted to rehearing and rewriting the judgment in appeal, which lay beyond the limited scope of review.

Conclusion: The review order was beyond jurisdiction and could not stand. The challenge to the order allowing review succeeded.

---