Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Registrar on 12 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
Rev.Apl.C(MD) No.23 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
Rev.Apl.C(MD) No.23 of 2016
1.S.Thendral
2.S.Crystal Sheeba
3.N.Rajeshwari
4.S.Saravana Perumal
5.T.Manimekalai
6.M.Mariyammal
7.R.Seema
8.S.Marimuthu
9.S.Suresh
10.M.Maria Stellar
11.J.Indirani
12.N.Theepalakshmi
13.S.Sahaya Praveena
_______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
Rev.Apl.C(MD) No.23 of 2016
14.V.Meena
15.P.Vasanthal
16.M.Velammal
17.C.Ramalakshmi
18.S.Petchiammal
19.S.Paramasivan
20.P.Pasunkili ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Registrar
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Abishekapatti
Tirunelveli
2.K.Rajasekaran
3.S.Subbulakshmi
4.T.Athisamy
5.R.Lawrence Arul Manickam
6.S.Balammal
7.V.Vijayalakshmi
8.M.P.Ramkumar
9.S.Maharajan
_______________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
Rev.Apl.C(MD) No.23 of 2016
10.G.Mangalraj
11.S.Mariappan
12.D.Sivaperumal
13.S.Kandasamy
14.M.Muruganandam
15.M.Muthukumar
16.M.Muthulakshmi
17.R.Pitchaiammal
18.M.Kalyankumar
19.S.Rathinapandy
20.A.Murugan
21.P.Sivasilam
22.V.Velmurugan ... Respondents
[RR2 to 22 are suo motu impleaded as
respondents 2 to 22 vide court order
dated 05.11.2019]
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Section 114, Order XLVII, Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment dated 29.04.2014 made in
W.A.No.351 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.APN Law Associates
_______________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
Rev.Apl.C(MD) No.23 of 2016
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1
Mr.K.Gurunathan
for RR2 to 5, 7 to 10, 12, 13, 16 to 18, 20 & 22
Mr.S.Rajasekar for RR14 & 15
No appearance for R21
Not ready notice for RR6, 11 & 19
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
This review application has been instituted to review the order
dated 29.04.2014 in W.A.(MD) No.351 of 2012.
2. The review petitioners herein are the original writ petitioners.
They filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.540 of 2011 seeking a direction to
the respondent – University to absorb them to the post of Junior Assistant
from the date of their appointment in the respondent – University and
consequently to direct the respondent – University to provide all service
benefits to them.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the respective learned
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
counsels, by an order dated 23.11.2011, allowed the said writ petition
directing the respondent – University to absorb the review petitioners in the
post of Junior Assistant from the date of their appointment by providing all
service benefits. Having aggrieved by the said order, the respondent –
University preferred W.A.(MD) No.351 of 2012.
4. The Division Bench of this Court, by a Judgment dated
29.04.2014, partly allowed the said writ appeal and modified the order of
learned Single Judge granting the benefit of absorption to the review
petitioners and the review petitioners were directed to be absorbed against the
regular vacancies with effect from 23.11.2011, the date of the order of the
learned Single Judge with all consequential monetary benefits arising out of
the same. Being not satisfied with the order of the learned Division Bench of
this Court, the review petitioners preferred the present review application in
Rev.AplC(MD) No.23 of 2016.
5. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated
29.10.2018, disposed the review application by modifying the judgment
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
passed in the writ appeal to the effect that the review petitioners shall be
absorbed from the date of their initial appointment with service benefits,
except monetary benefits. Having aggrieved by the same, the private
respondents preferred an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal No.6062 of 2019.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court of India, by an order dated
05.08.2019 allowed the said appeal, set aside the review order dated
29.10.2018 and remanded the review application to be decided afresh after
hearing the private respondents herein and thereafter, to pass orders afresh in
accordance with law. Accordingly, this review application is again taken up
for hearing.
7. Originally, the private respondents were not arrayed as parties
to the present review application. Subsequently, by an order dated
05.11.2019, they were suo motu impleaded by this Court as respondents 2 to
22 and notice was issued to all of them. On receipt of notice, they entered
appearance and represented by their respective learned counsels.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
materials available on record.
9. Originally, the review petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.
(MD) No.540 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondent – University to
absorb them to the post of Junior Assistant from the date of their appointment
in the respondent – University and to direct the respondent – University to
provide all service benefits to them. The said writ petition came to be allowed
by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 23.11.2011. Aggrieved by the
same, the respondent – University preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.351
of 2012 and the said writ appeal came to be partly allowed by the learned
Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 29.04.2014 and the order
passed by the learned Single Judge came to be modified to the extent that the
review petitioners are entitled to absorption against the regular vacancies with
effect from 23.11.2011, the date of the order passed in the writ petition, with
all monetary and other benefits. Few employees, who are all affected on
account of the retrospective absorption of the review petitioners, also filed a
writ appeal mainly on the ground that their seniority will be affected and the
same was also heard and disposed of along with the appeal filed by the
respondent – University. However, the issue relating to seniority was left open
during the relevant point of time. Thereafter, this review application came to
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
be filed and the same came to be disposed of with a modification to the
Judgment passed in the writ appeal to the effect that the review petitioners
shall be absorbed from the date of their initial appointment with service
benefits, except monitory benefits. A civil appeal was also filed before the
Honourable Supreme Court of India by the employees, whose seniority is likely
to be affected and the absorption of the review petitioners with retrospective
effect and the Honourable Supreme Court of India allowed the said civil
appeal, set aside the order passed in the review application came to be set
aside and the review application was remanded back for deciding the issue
afresh after hearing the private respondents herein and to pass a fresh order
thereafter.
10. Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the review petitioners would mainly contend that the review petitioners are
entitled for retrospective absorption from the date of their initial appointment
to the post of Junior Assistant, since their initial appointment is on regular
basis and based on selection process.
11. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent – University would oppose the above contention of the learned
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
Senior Counsel for the review petitioners by stating that the selection process
as per the rules applicable were not followed during the relevant point of time
and they were initially inducted as temporary employees and hence, they are
not entitled for absorption from the date of their initial appointment.
12. Be that as it may, these grounds raised between the parties
are falling beyond the scope of the power of review conferred on the High
Court. The scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot
be expanded for the purpose of re-adjudication of the merits involved in a lis.
Only in the event of error apparent on record, High Court is required to
exercise the review power, but not otherwise. The grounds for an appeal
cannot be considered in a review application.
13. In the present case, the review petitioners have raised certain
grounds, which relate to the merits of the case, which were already
adjudicated by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of
this Court. That being the factum, the review petitioners have not established
any error apparent on record warranting this Court to exercise the power of
review. However, in respect of the issue relating to seniority, the parties are at
liberty to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
14. With the above observation, this review application is
dismissed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
12.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
krk
12.06.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:39 pm )
