1. This is an unfortunate case wherein the appellant has been put to the necessity of approaching this Court for a second time. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. The appellant was allowed to take necessary test before the Public Service Commission. However, his candidature was cancelled on three grounds :
(i) that he did not possess diploma in Automobile engineering/mechanical engineering;
(ii) that he did not possess heavy vehicles' licence; and
(iii) that he did not have the requisite experience subsequent to the acquisition of necessary qualification from a recognised reputed workshop.
2. This Court on earlier occasion having examined the matter stated that on these three aspects, the appellant satisfies the qualification required by the Rules in an appeal arising out of an order made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') on the previous occasion, by which it had refused to interfere with the action taken by the Public Service Commission, cancelling the candidature of the appellant was set aside, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment if he otherwise satisfies the requisite qualifications including the marks obtained in the written test and the interview already held. On examination of this matter, the authorities not having given an appointment to the appellant, he had approached the Tribunal once over again. That application was considered and the Tribunal examined whether qualification should be reckoned as possessed on the last date of filing of the application or on the date of the interview and found two sets of precedents in decisions of this Court. However, on the basis that even if on the date of interview the candidate possesses qualification, he could be appointed, the matter was disposed of with a direction to clear his case and to consider him for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. Thereafter, when the order made by the Tribunal was not complied with, an application in contempt had been filed. The Tribunal reviewed its earlier order and set aside its earlier order made on the Original Application and dismissed the application filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. The scope for consideration before the Tribunal was very limited. Inasmuch as this Court had found that the appellant did possess the necessary qualification as per the Rules and the Tribunal having found he was entitled for appointment in Original Application No. 94/1995, there is no justification for the Tribunal to have reviewed the matter once over again, particularly, when the scope of review is very much limited under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as is vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal could have interfered in the matter if the error pointed out, is plain and apparent. But the Tribunal proceeded to re-examine the matter as if it is an original application before it. This is not the scope of review.
4. In that view of the matter, we think the order on review made by the Tribunal needs to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The order dated 27-3-1995 made by the Tribunal on the Original Application No. 94/1995 shall stand restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
5. However, in the circumstances of the case, we think it is appropriate to award the cost of the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.