Madras High Court
M.Uthayasekar vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service ... on 8 July, 2021
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on Pronounced on
24.01.2022 31.01.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
Review Application (MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD) No.8018 of 2021
M.Uthayasekar ... Petitioner/Appellant
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
O/o. The District Educational Office,
Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Corporate Office Building,
3rd Floor, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of C.P.C., to
review the order made in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 passed
by this Hon'ble Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimhan
For Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader
*****
ORDER
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
AND
S.ANANTHI,J.,
The present Review Application is taken out by the Petitioner to review
the judgment dated 08.07.2021 passed in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021.
2. In the Writ Petition filed by the Review Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.
8868 of 2021, this Court, on 15.06.2021, after considering the submissions
made by the respective parties, had dismissed the Writ Petition, by holding as
under:
"7. From the averments made in the affidavit
filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is seen that it is
an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed only
as temporary Typist under Rule 10(a) (i)(1) of the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules 2007, on
01.11.2007. The first respondent conducted special
qualifying test for absorbing the persons, like the
petitioner, who were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of
the Rules. The petitioner participated and was
successful in the examination. He was allotted to the
fourth respondent Industries Department. The petitioner
did not join in the fourth respondent Department. He
gave representation, dated 15.11.2010, for retaining
him in the Education Department. The same was
forwarded by the third respondent to the first
respondent, but, no order was passed on the
representation. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition
in W.P(MD)No.4805 of 2011. This Court, by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.04.2011, directed the first respondent to pass orders
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
on the representation, dated 15.11.2010, within a
period of eight weeks. The first respondent did not pass
any orders on the representation. The petitioner also
did not follow it up to get the orders for absorbing him
in the Education Department. The petitioner knowing
fully well that he was allotted to the fourth respondent
Department, for being absorbed as permanent Typist
and also did not follow up the representation, dated
15.11.2010, and orders of this Court, dated 26.04.2011.
In view of the failure on the part of the petitioner in
joining the fourth respondent Department, the fourth
respondent by the proceedings, dated 21.06.2012,
removed the petitioner's name from the approved list of
candidates. The petitioner did not challenge the said
order from the year 2012, but challenged the same only
in the present writ petition in the year 2012. The reason
given by the petitioner that he came to know about the
order passed by the fourth respondent dated
21.06.2012, only when the second impugned order dated
27.03.2021 was served on him, is not acceptable and the
said contention is without merits. The petitioner was
allotted to the fourth respondent Department and he
has given representation in the year 2010 itself, for
being retained in the Education Department and
therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of setting
aside the order of the fourth respondent, dated
21.06.2012, by filing the writ petition in the year 2021.
Further, according to the petitioner, he was served with
proceedings dated 24.09.2020 and filed writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.840 of 2021 for a direction to the first
respondent to consider the proposal sent by the third
respondent and the representation, dated 15.11.2010.
This Court, by order dated 26.04.2011, directed the first
respondent therein to dispose the representation of the
petitioner, dated 15.11.2010, on merits within eight
weeks. The first respondent by the second impugned
order, dated 27.03.2021, rejected the request of the
petitioner to allot him to the Education Department.
8. From the impugned order of the first
respondent, it is seen that the petitioner was allotted to
the fourth respondent based on the marks obtained by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him, rule of reservation, post option exercised by him,
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
vacancies, Gender etc. The first respondent has given
cogent and valid reasons for rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, dated 15.11.2010 and
there is no error in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.”
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, a Writ Appeal in
W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021 was preferred by the Review Applicant and the
order dated 08.07.2021 made in the Writ Appeal has been sought to be
reviewed in this Review Application. The Division Bench, by its order dated
08.07.2021, while upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, held as
follows:
"2. The appellant is the writ petitioner, who
sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to quash the order dated 21.06.2012, passed by the
fourth respondent and consequential memorandum
dated 27.03.2021 and for a direction to regularise his
services.
3. Admittedly, the appellant does not have any
vested right to claim that he should be allotted to a
particular Department in a recruitment conducted by
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in respect of
a non-OT post. Merely because in the counselling, the
appellant might have adopted to School Education
Department, that does not mean that he has to be
allotted in the School Education Department. Various
factors are taken into consideration for drawal of the
select list and allotment to various Departments.
Therefore, if the appellant was really in need of a
Government job, he ought to have joined the Industries
Department, but, rather abandoned the same and was
continuously litigating, stating that he has to be in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
School Education Department.
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
4. Therefore, the learned Single Bench rightly
declined to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, we
find no ground has been made out by the appellant to
interfere with the order passed in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ appeal fails and dismissed. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
4. The one and only and the foremost plea taken by the learned counsel
for the Applicant was that the representation of the Review Applicant dated
31.07.2021 may be ordered to be considered in this Application. He also drew
the attention of this Court to Page Nos.91 and 92 of the typeset of papers to
state that the Review Applicant has furnished all the particulars in support of
his claim, duly supported by the decision of this Court. For better
appreciation, the relevant Paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“..... Therefore, my request seeking change of
allotment to education Department was rejected by the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the same has
also been confirmed. In view of the same, my selection
in the Special Qualifying Examination becomes in valid.
But as far as my continuous service in the School
Education Department for more than 13 years, my
service can be regularized. That even the candidates
who have failed in the special qualifying examination
were regularized in view of continuous service. That the
Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Jalaja Kumar vs. P.A.
To District Collector, reported in 2008 5 MLJ 1073 has
held as follows:
“15. In the light of the above legal
pronouncements and also in view of the policy
Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department
dated 28.02.2006 and considering the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State itself had implemented the earlier orders of
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
the Tribunal in identical situations and also the fact
that under Rule 48, they have necessary power to
grant relaxation and further the fact that the
individuals have entered service on being sponsored
by Employment Exchange and have put in more
than two decades of service, we feel that it is a fit
case that the order of the Tribunal challenged in
W.P. No. 6331 to 6336 of 2004 must be affirmed
though not for the reasons indicated therein.”
Therefore, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the Review
Applicant that the case of the Review Applicant rests on better footing, if the
above representation is considered by the Respondents, as the Review
Applicant has been working in the substantive post for more than 10 years,
entitling him to regularization in view of the proposal submitted by the
Education Department dated 15.11.2010 itself.
5. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material papers available on record.
6. The main plea urged by the Applicant is that he had submitted a
representation dated 31.07.2021 to the respondents, narrating all the factual
aspects and events and the consideration of the same will not cause any
prejudice to the respondents. Hence, it was sought to be considered in this
Review Application, before taking a decision on the basis of the orders passed
in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
7. It is apposite to mention here that admittedly, the representation of
the Review Applicant was dated 31.07.2021, viz., subsequent to the judgment
made in the Writ Appeal. Thus, it is apparent that it did not form part of the
Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. At this stage, if the representation is ordered to
be apprised by the respondents, it will amount to opening a pandora box and
in that case, there will be no finality to the litigation.
8. It is an axiomatic principle in law that rehearing of matter on merits
and re-appreciation of the arguments / pleas raised by the litigants in the
original order is certainly impermissible under review. It is to be remembered
that review cannot be heard as an appeal, even if the order is an erroneous
one. The ambit of review passed in writ petition is very limited. That apart, for
correcting an erroneous decision 'Review' does not lie. It should also be
remembered that it is well settled that the scope of review is very minimal, as
held by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Special
Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development
Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and others
[Review Application (MD)No.82 of 2013] decided on 04.02.2015, by holding
as under:
"10. From the records, it is seen that the review applicant
did not contest the claim of the first respondent on merits in the
writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
review applicant admitted the contentions of the first
respondent. Based on the said admission only, an order was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
passed in the writ petition. The review application and the writ
appeal filed by the review applicant herein were dismissed as not
maintainable. W.A.(MD) No.502 of 2009 filed against the order
dated 26.07.2007 passed in W.P.(MD) No.4636 of 2004, was
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the
review applicant is not entitled to agitate the issue on merits. It
is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The
review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-
hearing on merits.
11. The scope of review was considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224 [Lilli
Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India and Others], wherein, in
paragraph 52, it was held as under:
"52.The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the
act of looking, offer something again with a view to
correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that
the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in
Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji [1971 (3) SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273] held
that the power of review is not an inherent power. It
must be conferred by law either specifically or by
necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal
in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue
which transcends all barriers and the rules or
procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the
way of administration of justice. Law has to bend
before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed
out in the review petition was under a mistake and the
earlier judgment would not have been passed but for
erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its
perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice
nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the
error. ....."
(emphasis supplied)
12. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in
2014 (3) TLNJ 245 (Civil) [M.Jai Kavitha Vs. The Authorised
Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Chennai - 1 and others],
in which, one of us [V.DHANAPALAN, J.] is a party, has considered
the scope of judicial review, wherein the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court was noted with approval. Paragraph No.9
of the said Judgment reads as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
"9.The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC can be
exercised by a court of law, if the order in question comprises a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Once an order
is pronounced, it should not be altered, unless there is an
apparent error. Law is well settled that erroneous finding is not a
ground for review, so also improper consideration for that matter.
In review application, the court does not sit in appeal over its own
judgment and the said application cannot be treated as an
appeal. This position has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Lily
Thomas Vs. Union of India [2000 (6) SCC 224]. Therefore, in the
absence of any error apparent on the face of record, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order in question, except to the
extent of deleting of the portions in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the
impugned order, with which the applicant is concerned as to
having an impact on the proceedings pending before the tribunal,
as stated in the foregoing paragraph." (emphasis supplied)
9. In yet another decision, the Division Bench of this Court in B.
Dhanalakshmi vs M. Shajahan and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512,
has opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant
paragraphs of the said order are given below:
"11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is
well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only
when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not
on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment
on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the
said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot
be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected". A review application also cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error
apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which
must strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require
any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
12. Based on the above principle of law, we are not
inclined to accede to the contention of the review applicants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis insofar as the relief of review by placing reliance on the time
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
taken by the appellants from the date of return of the copy
application and the date of filing the writ petition. Though the
learned counsel for the review applicants Mr. R. Natesan and Mrs.
Radha Gopalan may be correct in contending that while
computing the period of limitation each day delay should be
explained. The period taken by the appellants to file writ
petitions also may have bearing in computing the period as the
objectors cannot be allowed to take their own time to file writ
petition. However, for the reasons as to our limited power of
exercise of review our order in setting aside the grant on the
ground that the revision petitions were maintainable, we are not
inclined to review our order by adding the number of days taken
by the writ appellants for filing the writ petitions after the copy
application was received. As in that event, our order would be
completely reversed."
10. It is pertinent to mention here that Review should not be heard as
an appeal and even if the order is erroneous, it cannot be reviewed under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In that regard, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in
C.C.Sivaprasad vs. K.Sasidharan and another, reported in AIR 2006 Kerala
167 has been pleased to observe as under:
"9. It is clear from the impugned order of the learned Sub
Judge that the application for review was considered as if it was
an appeal. The learned Sub Judge has proceeded to rehear the
application filed under Rule 90 of Order XXI afresh ignoring the
limited power available under Order 47, Rule 1. No apparent
error was evident in the impugned order dated 6-4-2002 which
was reviewed by the learned Sub-Judge. Even if it is taken that
the order dated 6-4-2002 was erroneous that will not enable the
learned Sub Judge to review the order as if the petition was an
appeal. From the records of the executing Court, it cannot be
said that there was no settlement of proclamation, as has been
found by the Court below. Even if it is taken that there was no
settlement of proclamation, that will not itself enable the
judgment debtor to get the sale set aside unless he could satisfy
the Court that by such irregularity, substantial injury was
sustained. The learned Sub Judge in the impugned order did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
even consider the existence of a substantial injury and still
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
reviewed the earlier order on the ground that there is an
apparent error when there was no such apparent error. The
learned Sub Judge was not correct in exercising the power of
review when there was no glaring omission or patent mistake or
grave error that has crept in the order dated 6-4-2002. Even if
the order was erroneous and could have been interfered in an
appeal, that cannot be reviewed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the
Code. On the facts and the records available, the finding of the
learned Sub Judge is unsustainable. The order dated 6-4-2002
could not have been reviewed exercising the power under Order
47, Rule 1 on the grounds alleged."
11. Furthermore, this Court, in R.Mohala vs. M.Siva and others
[Review Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP No. 10818 and 10819 of 2018]
decided on 25.04.2018, elaborately discussed the scope of reviewing the
order passed in the Writ Petition, by holding as under:
“5. In the Writ petition, the contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties were heard in detail and a detailed order
has been passed to demolish the violated portions caused by the
Review Petitioner / 7th Respondent within a time frame. Even
though the Review Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to
the provisions of Sections 197 to 203 of Tamilnadu District
Municipalities Act, 1920 and contended that it does not fall
under any of the said provisions, this Court has taken note of the
entire facts and passed final orders and the Supreme Court has
come down heavily with regard to encroachment matters. That
apart, there is no ground to review this order.
6. To maintain a review application, the review petitioner
must satisfy the three requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.,
which are as under:
(i) From discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when
the decree was passed (or) order made;
(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face
of the record in the judgment under review; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.
7. The basic principle to entertain the review under Order
47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a
view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or)
altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the
Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered,
the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its
judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were
conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the
trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for
limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment
pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or
substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review
court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and
demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing
the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as
appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to
see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do
justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that
the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.
8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot
be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and
foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that
the order under review of which is sought, suffers from any error
apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such
error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be
disturbed.
9. In “Shanmuga Sundara Nadar vs.Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, rep. by its Chairman, Madras and others”, reported in
1988 (2) L.W. 57 (MAD.), this Court held as under:
"The power to review is a restricted power which
authorises the Court to look through the judgment not in order
to substitute a fresh or second judgment but in order to correct
it or improve it, because some material which it ought to have
considered has escaped consideration or failed to be placed
before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent
error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. The
Court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the power
to decide the case over again because it feels then that the
assessment of evidence, etc., done formerly was faulty or even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis incorrect. An erroneous view of evidence of law is not a ground
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
for review. A wrong exposition of the law, a wrong application of
the law and failure to apply the correct law have been held to
be not a ground for review."
10. In “Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury”
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Supreme Court, while
considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court
under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as under:
"The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47,
Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face
of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on
the face of the record must be such an error which must strike
one on mere looking at the record and would not require any
longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court
under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available
to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under
Article 226."
11. Having regard to the above, this Court does not find
any error apparent on the face of the order in order to entertain
the present review application.
Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12. In the case in Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8)
SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the position with regard to
review of an order as follows:
"Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open
to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
13. The Applicant, in the guise of seeking for consideration of his
representation dated 31.07.2021, cannot adopt the tactics of apprising the
facts once again, which is impermissible in law, as no fresh documents and new
facts cannot be considered and perused in an Application filed for review and
the Court cannot rehear the matter afresh / de novo, in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs.
State of Orissa and Others, reported in 1999 (9) SCC 596, wherein it was
categorically held as follows:
".......The provisions extracted above indicate that the
power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has
been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC.
The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions
indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the
application of a person on the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the order was made. The power can also be
exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review
cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or
arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that
is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for
correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the
face without any elaborate argument being needed for
establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any
other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason
sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.
Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an
apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in
Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the
Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
14. At this stage, this Court wants to emphasize that the well settled
legal position is that 'Review' erases the order / judgment from an inception. In
review, a Court of Law cannot rehear the matter De novo. Moreover, re-
appraisal of the whole gamut of materials on record for unearthing an
error/errors would amount to an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is
legally impermissible. There is no second opinion of a prime fact that the
'Power of Review' is a creation of a statute. A mere fact that
divergent/different views on the same subject are quite plausible/possible, it
is not a ground to review the earlier order passed by a Court of Law. To put it
precisely, the 'Power of Review' is not to be exercised for substituting the
earlier views arrived at by the concerned Competent Court. An erroneous
decision can be subject to an appeal to a Higher Forum. But, a review is
impermissible on the ground that the Court of Law proceeded on a wrong
proposition of law. Generally speaking, an error apparent on the face of record
means that an error must be quite obvious and self evident and in short, it
does require an elaborate argument to be established, as per decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. The
Government of A.P., reported in 1964 AIR 1372.
15. In view of the settled proposition of law in the matter of reviewing
the order, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court finds no apparent error on the face of the judgment made in W.A.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
(MD) No.1340 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021, as the Applicant has failed to satisfy
the three ingredients of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., [referred to above in the
order of this Court in R.Mohala vs. M.Siva and others (supra)], necessitating
review of the order so passed.
16. In fine, this Review Application is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
31.01.2022
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
Speaking Order
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
To:
1. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
O/o. The District Educational Office,
Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Corporate Office Building,
3rd Floor, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
ar
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
Review Application (MD) No.93 of 2021
in W.A.(MD) No.1340 of 2021
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
