[2026:RJ-JP:4784] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7901/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Hukama Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 6/300, Malviyanagar, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Principal Secretary To The Government, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Secretary, Through Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. 5. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma Mr. M.F Baig HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayers: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (2 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof:- 1. The order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in review application No. 11/2023 be quashed and set aside and 2. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned AAG, on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that Respondent No. 1, Jagdish Prasad, has filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RCSAT) for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner against the vacancy for the year 2015–16. He further submitted that, for promotion, it is necessary to have five years’ experience on the post of Joint Commissioner- cum-Regional Transport Officer or a total of 25 years of service, as per the notification dated 04.09.2013 issued by the DoP. He also submitted that Respondent No. 1 had only one year of experience as Joint Commissioner-cum-RTO as on 01.04.2015 and had completed a total length of service of 21 years, and considering all facts, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal on 09.06.2023. He further submitted that the respondent thereafter filed a review application, but the Tribunal, noticing some new facts as brought on record by Respondent No. 1, allowed the review application on 18.11.2023 and directed the petitioners to appoint Respondent No. 1 to the post of Additional Transport Commissioner against the vacancy for the year 2015–16. 3. Learned AAG further submitted that the issue had already been extensively examined by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal on 09.06.2023 and, there is no scope to entertain the [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (3 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] review application. However, the Tribunal, traveling beyond the settled principles has allowed the review application and issued directions to the petitioners on 18.12.2023. He further submitted that, as per the eligibility qualification, Respondent No. 1 was neither qualified nor eligible for consideration for the post of Additional Transport Commissioner against the vacancy for the year 2015–16. He also submitted that, as per the rules, the case of Respondent No. 1 cannot be considered and, therefore, he was neither eligible nor entitled for consideration, and the directions issued by the Tribunal are contrary to the provisions of the rules. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and submitted that initially an appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 09.06.2023 but after decision on 25.07.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3444/2013, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Chief Secretary and Ors., the adverse entries made in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 01.04.2005 to 16.12.2005 were quashed and expunged from the record and, as a result, the petitioner became eligible as per seniority and requisite qualifications. He also submitted that the petitioner preferred a review application before the Tribunal, which was allowed on 18.12.2023. He further submitted that subsequent to the rejection of the appeal on 09.06.2023, a writ petition was decided in favour of respondent No. 1, which is a subsequent event, therefore, order in review application is fully justified. 5. Heard learned AAG and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the material placed on record. [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (4 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] 6. The short controversy involved in the instant case is whether, after dismissal of Appeal No. 3363/2021 by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RCSAT) on 09.06.2023, the subsequent order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Review Application No. 11/2023 by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled position of law. 7. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. 3363/2021 before the RCSAT, Jaipur, on the ground that he was initially appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector by order dated 23.08.1980 and thereafter promoted to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector DTO/ARTO. Subsequently, he was promoted as DC/RTO against the vacancy for the year 2005–06 and has been working since 16.07.2005 against the vacancy which accrued on 01.04.2005. 8. The respondent No. 1 was promoted as Joint Commissioner, (Transport), against the vacancy for the year 2013–14. As per the petitioners, the post of Additional Commissioner, which was advertised on 04.09.2013, is going to be filled up 100% from promotion from Joint Commissioner and RTO, subject to having five years’ experience or 25 years of overall service. The respondent No. 1 claimed that initially he was not considered for the year 2013–14, but his name was considered for the vacancy for year 2015–16, when one post was available in the SC category. However, respondent No. 1 was not promoted and subsequently he superannuated in the month of November 2015. The petitioners have filed a reply to the appeal, but ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 09.06.2023. [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (5 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] 9. In the meantime, a writ petition No. 3444/2013 preferred by respondent No. 1 was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2023, whereby the adverse entries made in the ACR for the period 01.04.2005 to 16.12.2005 were quashed and expunged from the record. As a result, respondent No. 1 was placed senior to Shri Bhawarlal Verma. After the order dated 25.07.2023 passed in writ petition No. 3444/2013, respondent No. 1 filed a review application for recalling the judgment dated 09.06.2023, and the Tribunal recalled the order and, by review order dated 18.12.2023, directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner (Transport) against the vacancy for the year 2015– 16. 10. The grounds of review can be classified under three broad heads:- (i) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) discovery of a new or important fact or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the petitioner’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time of original judgment or order; (iii) any other sufficient reason, which has held must be analogous to the first two categories and not a general power to reconsider on merits. 11. The object and purpose of review jurisdiction is to correct an error or mistake apparent or significant on the face of the record so as to prevent grave injustice. The jurisdiction of review is different from an appeal, and a Court cannot act as a Court of appeal against its own order. [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (6 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] 12. It is well settled that, under the guise of a review application, a party cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue issues which have already been addressed and decided. The judgment in the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Limited Vs. Assam SEB (2020) 2 SCC 677, has defined the scope of review, which was later considered in the case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited and Ors. reported as MANU/SC/0741/2023. 13. In present case, a specific order dated 25.07.2023 was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court expunging the adverse entries made in the ACR of respondent No. 1 for the year 2005, and this judgment was passed after dismissal of the appeal by the RCSAT. If a subsequent decision in a writ petition, which was pending at the time of adjudication of the appeal by the Tribunal, has effect upon the decision or a controversy, then review jurisdiction can be exercised. Thus, there was justification for respondent No. 1 to file a review application. After the subsequent order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the RCSAT allowed the review applicationn, and there is no perversity or illegality in allowing the same. 14. So far as the eligibility of respondent No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has made specific observations at page No. 16 of Annexure-1 and pages 19, 20, and 21, which clearly indicate that one SC post was available, but no suitable candidate was founde. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as RTO vide order dated 15.07.2005 against the vacancy for the year 2005–06. 15. As per the notification dated 04.09.2013, five years’ experience on the post mentioned in column No.5, or 25 years of [2026:RJ-JP:4784] (7 of 7) [CW-7901/2024] combined service on the posts of Joint Transport Commissioner- cum-RTO, Assistant Transport Commissioner, ARTO, Senior District Transport Officer, and District Transport Officer, is prescribed for promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner-cum-RTO. 16. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the name of respondent No. 1 was included in the list of eligible persons for consideration. As per the record and material placed before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 was found eligible to be considered for promotion, as his name was included in the zone of consideration. Thus, the eligibility was duly examined by the Tribunal, and there is no perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. 17. Having considered the grounds raised by learned AAG, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while allowing the review application of respondent No. 1, and, there is no reason for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed along with pending applications, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU/205