https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467718 Review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record, newly discovered material despite due diligence, or other exceptional grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits. Applying that standard, the court found that the petitioner's school records and service register consistently recorded the date of birth as 15.06.1958, while the claimed later correction and gazette entry were unsupported by independent evidence proving an actual birth date of 18.10.1959. A mistaken gazette entry alone did not create a legal basis for review, so no ground for review was established. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:04:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467718 Review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record, newly discovered material despite due diligence, or other exceptional grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits. Applying that standard, the court found that the petitioner's school records and service register consistently recorded the date of birth as 15.06.1958, while the claimed later correction and gazette entry were unsupported by independent evidence proving an actual birth date of 18.10.1959. A mistaken gazette entry alone did not create a legal basis for review, so no ground for review was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467718