Madras High Court
S.Ruban Prince Vinothkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 November, 2023
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
Review Application Nos.226 of 2022 & 198 of 2023
S.Ruban Prince Vinothkumar
...Appellant in Rev.Aplw.No.226 of 2022
1.S.Sreenuvasan
2.G.Ramesh
3.K.Anandan
...Appellants in Rev.Aplw.No.198 of 2023
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education (C2) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner/Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai-600 025.
3. K.Chandrasekaran
...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.226 of 2022
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
Higher Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
3.The Additional Director of Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy,
Chennai-600 025.
...Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.198 of 2023
Common prayer: The Review Applications are filed under Order 47 Rule 1
of CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order passed by this
Court in W.A.No. 886 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022.
Appellants : Mr.R.Singaaravelan
in both Rev.Aplw.Nos.
Respondents : Mr.Ramanlal
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S. John J Rajasingh
Additional Government Pleader
in both Rev.Aplw.Nos.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]
Review Applications are filed against the common order passed in
Writ Appeal No.886 of 2022 batch.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15046 of 2018 for a
writ of mandamus directing the the respondents one and two to promote
the petitioner as Instructor on par with Junior Mr.K.Chandrasekaran with
all benefits as was given to the petitioner's juniors in G.O(Ms).No. 168,
Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 26.09.2017. In the said writ
petition, this Court passed an order on 05.03.2021, directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion as
Workshop Instructor on par with Chandrasekaran. The petitioner
thereafter filed the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.862 of 2021, as the
respondents had not passed any order in pursuance of the order passed by
the Court. The respondents later passed an order dated 03.08.021 rejecting
the petitioners claim for promotion as Instructor on par with
K.Chandrasekaran. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed the writ appeal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
W.A.No.886 of 2022. Aggrieved by the common order passed in
W.A.No.886 of 2022 batch, the petitioner has preferred the above review
application.
3. The petitioners 1 to 3 filed W.P.No.1930 of 2018 for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter (D) No.299 dated 23.09.2017 and
quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and to direct the 1st
respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of instructor or to the
post of Lecturer with effect from the date of promotion as per other
similarly situated candidates as per G.O(Ms).No. 95, Higher Education (1)
Department, dated 26.03.2008 passed in pursuance of the order of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1323 of 2011 dated 02.11.2013 and
G.O(Ms).No. 121, Higher Education 9(C1) Department dated 01.04.2011
passed in pursuance of the Order of this Court in W.P.No.9905 of 2001
dated 10.07.2009 and W.A.No.807 of 2015 dated 19.06.2015 and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
G.O(Ms).No.20, Higher Education Department dated 01.02.2016 with all
monetary benefits and service benefits. The Writ Petition No.1930 of 2018
was tagged with other Writ Appeals No.886 of 2022 and writ petitions
where the issues were common in nature. Aggrieved by the common order
passed in W.A.No.886 of 2022 etc. batch, the petitioners preferred the
above review application.
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the
review petitioners were not able to place the individual facts of their case
before the Court which were different from the batch and therefore the
review is filed. The learned counsel further referring to para '52' of the
order, stated that the Court erred in thinking that only the Amended
service rules will apply to the petitioner's case and not the old Rules. The
learned counsel relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 1983 (3) SCC 284 submitted that the petitioner was qualified
and entitled to promotion to the post of Instructor based on old Rules. The
learned counsel further submitted as the review petitioner become eligible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
for promotion even before the abolition of post vide G.O(Ms).No.184 dated
15.10.2014, the review petitioner was entitled to be considered for
promotion as an Instructor. The counsel therefore submitted that as these
aspects were not considered by the Court, the review petition was filed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and
that on the grounds stated in the review petition, review cannot be
sustained. The counsel further submitted that all the points raised by the
review petitioner in the review petition were already raised before the
Division Bench and therefore in the guise of review petition the petitioner
cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue.
6. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the
entire materials placed on record.
7. Before entering into the merits of the issue, we would like to refer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court to which one of us (S.V.N,J)
was a party. In the case of The Teachers Recruitment Board vs. T.Shanthi and
another in Review Application No. 19 of 2023 in W.A.No.2958 of 2021 dated
28.03.2023, the scope of review was elaborately dealt with. Relevant
paragraph '9' therein is as follows:
“9. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
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.”
8. Keeping in view the above legal propositions we venture to
enquire if the review petition is sustainable.
9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
he was not able to place the individual grievance of the review petitioner
before the Division Bench. We would like to refer to the preface to the
Judgment under review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
“Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of similar
matter, both the counsels represented that the case before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has no bearing on individual grievance espoused
herein. Therefore, the counsels submitted that this Bench should hear
and decide the matter. On the request of both the counsels the matters
are taken up for hearing and disposal.”
10. It was only on the above consensus that the writ appeals were
taken up together and the common order was passed. Nothing prevented
the petitioner from addressing the Court on the individual facts of his case,
but he failed and therefore it is very unfortunate that the petitioner should
take such a plea in the review petition. In any event we are of the view that
the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the said ground.
11. The contention of the review petitioner on para '52' of the
Judgment that only the old rules will apply will amount to rewriting the
Judgment. We have already expressed our view that the service rules
inforce now would only apply and not the old Rules. If the petitioner is
aggrieved with the same, his remedy lies elsewhere but not in review. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
the guise of review, the petitioner cannot have the Judgment rewritten to
suit his case, moreso, when the petitioner had agreed to conduct the case
along with the batch, were the core issue was regarding the abolition of the
post of Instructor. We have gone through the other grounds raised by the
review petitioner and we find that they are all addressed in the common
Judgment. We find no error apparent on the face of the order and in
absence of any apparent error being made out, the review petition cannot
be entertained.
As the finality attached to the order cannot be overturned by way of
review, we find no merits in the review petitions and the same are
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [N.M.,J.]
21.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education (C2) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner/Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai-600 025.
3.The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
4.The Additional Director of Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy,
Chennai-600 025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.226 of 2022 and 198 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
and
N.MALA ,J.
dsn
Review Application Nos.226 of 2022 & 198 of 2023
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
