Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Thirunavukkarasan on 23 September, 2021
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 of 2021
Review Application No.146 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
3. The Principal,
Government Law College,
Madurai. ... Review Applicants
vs.
P.Thirunavukkarasan ... Respondent
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the common judgment dated
08.07.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.529 to 532 of 2011.
Page No.1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
Review Application No.147 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Review Applicants
vs.
V.Udayakumar ... Respondent
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the common judgment dated
08.07.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.529 to 532 of 2011.
Review Application No.148 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Page No.2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
Chennai - 600 035
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Review Applicants
vs.
1. S.S.Swaminathan
2. R.Malaichamy
3. V.P.Rajendran
4. S.Sounder
5. P.Balamanickam
6. R.Ravichandran ... Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the common judgment dated
08.07.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.529 to 532 of 2011.
Review Application No.149 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Review Applicants
vs.
G.Ramapandian ... Respondent
Page No.3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the judgment dated 10.10.2013
passed in W.A.No.1499 of 2011.
Review Application No.150 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Review Applicants
vs.
1. C.Ravichandran
2. Sankari Singaravelan
3. G.Sundarajan
4. Haja Nazirudeen
5. T.Vasu
6. K.Shanmugakani ... Respondents
(R3 to R6 given up and Cause Title accepted vide order dated 23.03.2011
made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.SR.No.23238 of 2011)
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the judgment dated 19.06.2013
passed in W.A.No.754 of 2011.
Page No.4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
Review Application No.151 of 2021:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
Now at Purasawalkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ... Review Applicants
vs.
1. Sheela Mercy Devadoss
2. V.Sophia Raju
3. K.S.Begum
4. Paranthaman
5. Thangasamy ... Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the common judgment dated
08.07.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.529 to 532 of 2011.
*****
For Review Applicants in all Mr.S.Silambanan,
Review Applications : Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Government Advocate
in W.A.Nos.146 to 148 of 2021
and Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan,
Government Advocate
in W.A.Nos.149 to 151 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
Above Review Applications are filed seeking to review the common
order dated 08.07.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.529 to 532 of 2011; order dated
10.10.2013 passed in W.A.No.1499 of 2011 and the order dated 19.06.2013
passed in W.A.No.754 of 2011.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Review
Applicants in all cases contended that, the Division Bench allowed the Writ
Appeals solely relying on an earlier order passed for regularization.
According to him, the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was set
aside by the Division Bench of this Court, was in order and the Division
Bench has considered that, the Writ Petitioners were part-time Lecturers and
they will not be entitled to regularization unless otherwise the candidate
possesses minimum standard and complies with the mandatory provisions of
the U.G.C. Norms.
3. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General that, the Division Bench in reference to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, has granted relief to some of the candidates who were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
part-time Lecturers, based on the earlier orders of this Court and the said
concession cannot be automatically extended. Hence, reference to
G.O.Ms.No.193, Law (LS) Department, dated 08.05.1996, may not be
applicable to this case.
4. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
Review Applicants and perused the material documents available on record.
5. This Court is of the view that, Respondents herein cannot be
compared on par with that of Full-time labourers and that, the relief granted
by the Division Bench has to be interfered with. All the part-time lecturers,
who were above 40 years old, have knocked at the doors of this Court as early
as in the year 2000 itself and they are battling for relief for two decades.
6. We do not want to deal with those aspects in the present Review
Petition, as the scope of the Review is very limited. In the case on hand,
orders passed in the Writ Appeals have been tested before the Apex Court
and the Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Of course,
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is not a bar for this Court to entertain
the Review in the light of the Apex Court decision in the case of Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
(Civil Appeal No.2432 of 2019, dated 01.03.2019). Relevant portion of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“28. Applying the aforesaid principles, the
outcome of these Appeals would be as under:
Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.490 of 2012: In the instant case,
since Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine
without giving any reasons, the Review Petition filed by
the Appellant in the High Court would be maintainable
and should have been decided on merits. Order dated
November 12, 2008 passed by the High Court is
accordingly set aside and matter is remanded back to the
High Court for deciding the Review Petition on merits.
Civil Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Civil Appeal arising out Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.13792 of 2013: “In this case, we find
that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed with the
following order passed on January 05, 2012:
“We find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is
dismissed.”
Here also, Special Leave Petition was dismissed in
limine and without any speaking order. After the
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Respondent in
this Appeal had approached the High Court with Review
Petition. Said Review Petition is allowed by passing
order dated December 12, 2012 on the ground of
suppression of material facts by the Appellant herein and
commission of fraud on the Court. Such a Review
Petition was maintainable. Therefore, the High Court
was empowered to entertain the same on merits. Insofar
as Appeal of the Appellant challenging the order dated
December 12, 2012 on merits is concerned, the matter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
shall be placed before the regular Board to decide the
same.”
7. At this juncture, it is worth referring to a Division Bench decision
of this Court in Review Application (Writ) No.20 of 2018 vide order dated
09.03.2018, wherein, it is held as under:
“16. Coming to the issue on hand with regard to the
maintainability of the review application, it is worth referring
to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh
Verma vs. Mayawati, reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320,
wherein, the Apex Court has considered the scope of the
review jurisdiction and summarised the factors, as to when
the review will be maintainable and when the review will not
be maintainable and the same reads as follows:
"Summary of the principles:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the Statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki ( (1921-22) 49 IA 144 :
(1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112) and approved by this
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520)
to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
those specified in the rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd. ( (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275).
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but
lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
17. Further, in the case on hand, there is no error
apparent on the face of record to review the order passed in
the Writ Petition. The basic principle to entertain a Review
Application 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's 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.
18. Moreover, a Review Application cannot be
entertained merely, as the Apex Court in the case of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board Vs. N.Raju Reddiar, reported in
1997 (9) SCC 736, has observed as under:
"1. ... ... When an appeal/special leave petition is
dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is
apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the
Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in
the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends
valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and
should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on
merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a
practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too,
with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the
Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to
maintain the salutary practice of profession. ... "
19. 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.”
8. In the present case on hand, we find no merits to review the
order under challenge, as, the learned Single Judge has considered all the
facts and legal issues pleaded by the parties concerned. Hence, the Review
Applications are dismissed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [A.A.N.,J.]
23.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(vm/aeb)
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2021
(aeb)
Common order in
Review Application Nos.146, 147, 148,
149, 150 and 151 of 2021
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
