Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs K.Chandrasekar on 26 June, 2023
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Transport Commissioner
Ezhilagam Complex, Chennai – 5.
3.The Joint Transport Commissioner
Ezhilagam Complex
Chennai – 5. ... Review Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Chandrasekar
2.S.K.M.Sivakumaran ... Respondents
Review Application filed under 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC
to reconsider and review the order dated 07.10.2020 made in
W.A.No.1844 of 2019.
For Review Appellants :Mr.P.S.Raman, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.S.Silambanan, AAG
assisted by
Mr.S.John J Raja Singh
Addl. Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.R.Thomas
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed with a prayer to review
the order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.A.No.1844 of 2019.
2.After the Writ Appeal was decided, the matter was carried on
appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by an order dated
08.03.2022, the Special Leave Petition in SLP (C)No.5628 of 2021 was
dismissed by passing the following order:-
“IA No.71451/2021 in Diary No.13521/2021
seeking permission to file Special Leave Petition is
allowed.
In light of the order passed in SLP
(c)Nos.22717 – 22719/2015 & 28670/2015, SLP
(C)No.5628/2021 and Diary No(s).13521/2021 also
stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
The following order is passed in SLP(C) Nos.22717 of 2015 etc.,:
“The present batch of petitions are directed against the
self-same judgment dated 28th May, 2015 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, while upholding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 th February,
2014 directing the State respondents to prepare a seniority list
of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II placing the original writ
petitioner (appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II on
compassionate grounds) above the direct recruits in the cadre
of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II and consider him for
promotion as per the revised seniority for promotion on the
post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I and Deputy Transport
Commissioner.
Undisputedly, facts revealed from the record are that the
original writ petitioner was appointed as Motor Vehicle
Inspector Grade II on compassionate grounds by an order
dated 15th December, 1992, pursuant to which he joined
service on 28th December, 1992 and the State Government by
GO dated 16th July, 1993 waived the condition of qualifying the
competitive test to be held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission (for short “the Commission”) for the candidates
who are appointed on compassionate grounds. In consequence
thereof, he was regularized w.e.f. 16th July, 1993 by an order
dated 25th March, 1999. Undisputedly, the order pursuant to
which the writ petitioner was regularized on the post of Motor
Vehicle Inspector Grade II w.e.f. 16th July, 1993 was not the
subject matter of challenge at any stage.
At the same time, the candidates who are impleaded as
respondents in the original petition were the direct recruits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
recruited through the recommendations made by the
Commission and were ap- pointed by an order dated 26th July,
1993 and joined service during September, 1993.
Undisputedly, the direct recruits were appointed subsequent to
the appointment of the original writ petitioner in the cadre of
Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II.
The question of inter se seniority of direct recruits qua
the compassionate appointees became the subject matter of
challenge and it was put to rest by the learned Single Judge by
judgment dated 19th February, 2014 and came to be confirmed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras under its
judgment and order dated 28th May, 2015 upholding the inter
se seniority to be assigned from the date of substantive/regular
appointment, from the date one became a member of service in
terms of Rule 35 (aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the Rules, 1955’).
Admittedly, in the instant case, the compassionate
appointee was appointed prior to the direct recruits in the
cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II and stood
regularized on 16th July, 1993. There appears no reason why
he should not be assigned seniority above the direct recruits in
terms of Rule 35 (aa) of the Rules, 1955.
After we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties
for quite some time, find no reason to interfere in the judgment
impugned dated 28th May, 2015 passed by the High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 5628/2021 and Diary No(s). 13521/2021:
IA No.71451/2021 in Diary No.13521/2021 seeking
permission to file Special Leave Petition is allowed.
In light of the order passed in SLP(C) Nos. 22717-
22719/2015 & 28670/2015, SLP(C) No. 5628/2021 and Diary
No(s). 13521/2021 also stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(emphasis supplied)
3.Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
review applicants would submit that so long as the leave was not granted,
there is no merger. Secondly, even with reference to the observations
made on merits, this Court under exceptional circumstances can look into
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and so far it did not deal
with the matter of grant of financial benefit, it can entertain the review
and consider the review prayer made on merits. In support of his
submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hkoday Distilleries Ltd., Vs. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.,1 .
1 Civil Appeal No.2432 of 2019 dated 01.03.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
4.We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side. We have extracted the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 08.03.2022, above. The relevant paragraph dealing
with the above situation in the case of Hkoday Distilleries Ltd., cited
supra in paragraph No.27 (b) (v). It is essential to extract the said
paragraph here:-
“If the order refusing leave to appeal is a
speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the
grant of leave, then the order has two implications.
Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is
a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly,
other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated
in the order are the findings recorded by the
Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto
and also the court, tribunal or authority in any
proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial
discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court
of the country. But, this does not amount to saying
that the order of the court, tribunal or authority
below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme
Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding
as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between
the parties.”
5.Thus, it can be seen that other than the declaration of law, when
the findings are recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it
would bind the parties thereto and also the Courts, Tribunals or
authorities in any proceedings, subsequent thereto by way of judicial
discipline. Therefore, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given a
finding that there is no reason to interfere with the order, which is sought
to be reviewed and this Court cannot entertain any plea, whatsoever in
the review application. Therefore, even though there is no merger, since
there are findings on merits by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
Review Application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (D.B.C, J.)
Index : Yes / No 26.06.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Jer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
Jer
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/9
Rev. Applc.No.114 of 2023
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/9
