Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Narendiran on 28 June, 2023
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Review Application No.115 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.13550 of 2023
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director,
Commissionerate of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building, Chennai-15.
3. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram. ... Review Applicants
-vs-
M.Narendiran ... Respondent
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
Prayer: Review Application filed against the order dated 15.02.2022 made in
W.A.No.248 of 2022.
For Review Applicants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran
****
ORDER
The Review Applicants have come forward with this Application, seeking to
review the judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.248 of 2022 dated 15.02.2022.
2. The Writ Petitioner / Respondent herein filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.28873
of 2017, challenging the order of the 1st Respondent dated 03.08.2015, in G.O.(I-D)
No.408 Panchayat Development and Panchayat Raj (E-7) department, insofar as it
declares the probation of the Writ Petitioner herein w.e.f. 05.04.2014 instead of
31.05.2010 and consequently, for a direction to the Applicants herein to forthwith
declare the probation of the Respondent herein in the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f.
31.05.2010, the date of passing of the department test and pay all monetary benefits
w.e.f. 01.06.2010. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 28.07.2021, against which Writ Appeal in W.A.No.248 of 2022 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
preferred by the Aapplicants herein and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated
15.02.2022 by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
applicants submitted that though this Court has considered the fact that there was a
delay on the part of the Applicants in deputing the Respondent herein for Foundational
Course Training at Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar, it has failed to take
note of the fact that the Respondent, being a compassionate ground appointee, could not
be sent to Foundational Course Training before his services were regularised by the
Government, for which the Respondent herein had failed to submit the full-fledged
additional records called for by the Government in time for his regularization and as this
factual aspect was not considered appropriately, the order suffers from error on the
factual aspect. He further submitted that as per existing Rule 34(a) read with Annexure
V of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and Rule 37 of Tamil Nadu
Judicial Ministerial Service, a pass in the examination conducted at the end of
Foundational Training Course at Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar is a pre-
requisite qualification for declaration of probation for directly recruited Junior Assistants
and Assistants in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. He further submitted that this Court
ought to have considered that if the Respondent herein had passed the paper, viz.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
"Service Procedure" conducted at the end of the period from 29.06.2013 to 27.08.2013 ,
his probation would have been declared as early as on 31.05.2010, i.e. within 2 years in
continuous period of 3 years of probation. The learned Additional Advocate General
relied on Sections 3(2), 31 (3) and 31 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
(Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and submitted that the Respondent herein should not
challenge the delay on the part of the Government alone in declaring his probation.
Based on these submissions, he sought review of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed in
the writ appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that only after
taking note of the submissions made on either side and the relevant rules, the order
under review came to be passed and hence, the same does not warrant interference.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The Respondent herein joined the services on 18.07.2007 and was regularised
in service vide Government Order dated 15.05.2013 and there was a delay of nearly 6
years, on the part of the Government in regularising the services of the respondent,
which resulted in deputing the Respondent herein for training belatedly, which has had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
cascading effect in his service.
7. It is to be pointed out that this Court, only after considering the rival
submissions advanced on either side and on considering the relevant rules, rendered the
judgment under review. That apart, in the said judgment, since the probation of the Writ
Petitioner/Respondent herein is deemed to have been declared on completion of
maximum period of service, we confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. Furthermore, it is now fairly well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court
as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is very minimal and it is
circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It would be relevant to refer to a few
Judgments of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court to understand and appreciate
the scope of review jurisdiction to find out if the Applicants have made out a case for
reviewing the order dated 15.02.2022 in W.A.No.248 of 2022. An 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, held as follows:
“10... 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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
hearing on merits.”
9. In another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512, it was
opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of
the said order are extracted 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.”
10. Furthermore, in R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review Petition No.61
of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018, one of us
(SVNJ) elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as
follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
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.”
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while considering the scope of the
power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:
"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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
12. In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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 must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
13. From a reading of the Judgments referred to above, it can be fairly discerned
that:
1.Review is not an appeal in disguise.
2.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.
3.A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the
law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for
review.
4.The power to review is a restricted power given through a
Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on
the basis of some material which ought to have been considered,
escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other
reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.
5.The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the
erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
be disturbed.
6.Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in
the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only
be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of
reasoning on point.
14. The above are some of the basic principles on which the power to review rests.
The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
15. To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicants need to satisfy three basic
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
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.”
16. The grounds raised by the applicants, in our considered opinion, are beyond
the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. The Review Applicants, in the
guise of this Review Petition, want this Bench to re-write its Judgment, which is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above, review is not an appeal in
disguise and as such, in this case, there is no error in the judgment under review,
apparent on the fact of the record. Therefore, this Court rightly confirmed the order of
the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review.
17. For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the review application and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Review Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [M.S.Q., J]
28.06.2023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai- 600 004.
2. The Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.115 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
arr
Review Application No.115 of 2023
28.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
