Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its vs V.Ramakrishnan on 18 November, 2024
Bench: S.S.Sundar, Mohammed Shaffiq
Review Application No.31 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Review Application No.31 of 2024
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Energy Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government
Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai 600 032 .. Appellants
Vs.
V.Ramakrishnan .. Respondent
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with 114
CPC to review the judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed in W.A.No.2986 of 2023.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Prem Narayan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Review Application No.31 of 2024
ORDER
(Made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This review application is filed seeking to review the judgment dated
02.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.A.No.2986 of 2023.
2. The respondent earlier filed writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.27417 of
2022 and 5036 of 2023 ;
“W.P.No.27417 of 2022 was filed for issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to publish the panel for
promotion to the post of Senior Electrical Inspector for the year
2018-2019 after including the name of the petitioner in the said
panel and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the
petitioner to the post of Senior Electrical Inspector without
reference to the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent in
proceedings Proc.No.Ku.A.No.13651/E3/2021 dated 13.06.2022.
W.P.No.5036 of 2023 was filed for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the
impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in letter
No.2436/D2/2019 dated 30.01.2023 and to quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to include the name of the
petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Senior
Electrical Inspector for the year 2018-2019 and to promote the
petitioner to the post of Senior Electrical Inspector in accordance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.31 of 2024
with his seniority and without reference to the charge memo issued
by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Proc.No. Ku.A.No.
13651/E3/2021 dated 13.06.2022.”
3. The grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner is that his name had
been omitted in the promotion panel drawn in the year 2018-2019 for the post
of Senior Electrical Inspector on the ground that the charges under Section
17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955,
dated 13.06.2022, is pending. Taking note of the fact that the crucial date for
drawing the promotion panel for Senior Electrical Inspector is the 1st day of
November every year and the fact that the charge memo was issued only on
13.06.2022, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.5036 of 2023, directing
the review petitioners to include the respondent/writ petitioner's name in the
post of Senior Electrical Inspector and pass an order of promotion on par with
his immediate juniors and dismissed W.P.No.27417 of 2022 as having become
infructuous, since the panel was already published.
4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.5036
of 2023 was challenged in a writ appeal filed by the review petitioners in
W.A.No.2986 of 2023. This Court, for the same reasons assigned by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.31 of 2024
learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. There is no reference to new
facts of documents in any of the grounds raised in the review application.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that only at the
time of finalising the promotion, the charge memo was issued and therefore, the
Judgment of this Court and the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition
are on an erroneous assumption of facts.
6. This Court is unable to agree with the submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General. First of all, no such ground was raised either in
the review application or in the writ appeal. Secondly, it is a fact that the name
of the writ petitioner was not included in the promotion panel even though on
the crucial date, no charge memo was issued. It is quite interesting and
surprising to note that the writ petitioner's name was not included, probably on
the assumption that there would be a charge memo in 2022. This glaring
mistake or injustice was taken note of by the learned Single Judge and this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.31 of 2024
7. Review is maintainable, when there is an error apparent on the face of
record. This Court finds no such error either in narration of the facts or on the
appreciation of law. It is admitted that the respondent's name though was
included in the panel, till date, no promotion is given. This is another illegality
and the conduct of the appellants is contumacious. Therefore, this review
application stands dismissed and the appellants are directed to comply with the
order of the learned Single Judge forthwith. No costs.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
18.11.2024
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.31 of 2024
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
Review Application No.31 of 2024
18.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
