Rectification cannot attack a binding Supreme Court ruling; any alleged mistake must be corrected before the Supreme Court itself.

Rectification under a ROM petition was unavailable where the applicant's grievance was not a mistake in the Tribunal's own order, but an alleged error in the Supreme Court judgment the Tribunal had followed. A subordinate forum cannot presume an apparent mistake in a binding Supreme Court decision and alter its effect by rectification; any correction must be sought before the Supreme Court itself. Because the Tribunal had only applied the binding precedent, no rectifiable error in its final order was shown and the ROM petition was dismissed as not maintainable on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of the Tribunal's final order could be granted in a ROM petition on the ground that the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the Tribunal contained an apparent mistake.

Analysis: The sole basis of the petition was that the Supreme Court decision referred to by the Tribunal allegedly mentioned an incorrect date concerning the amendment of Rule 57-I. The request was not that the Tribunal had erred in applying the Supreme Court ruling, but that the Supreme Court judgment itself contained a mistake. A subordinate judicial forum cannot presume an error in a Supreme Court judgment and then proceed to alter its effect by rectification; if such a mistake exists, the proper course is to seek rectification before the Apex Court. Since the Tribunal had merely applied the binding Supreme Court decision, no rectifiable mistake in the Tribunal's order was shown.

Conclusion: The ROM petition was not maintainable on the asserted ground and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate forum cannot rectify its order by treating a binding Supreme Court judgment as merely because a party alleges an error in that judgment; any correction must be sought from the Supreme Court itself.

---