Madras High Court
C.Jayakanthan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2025
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 25/9/2025
Pronounced on 8/10/2025
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Review Application Nos.73 to 78 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.22294, 6738, 6743, 6747, 6749,
6753, 6754, 6725 and 6737 of 2025
C.Jayakanthan ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.73 of 2025
U. Palanisamy ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.74 of 2025
A. Mala ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.75 of 2025
C.S.Murugesan ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.76 of 2025
P. Kala ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.77 of 2025
M. Palanivel ... Petitioner in
Review Petition No.78 of 2025
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of the School Education
DPI Complex, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Complex, College Road
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents in all the
writ petitions
4. T. Kumaresan ... Fourth respondent
in Review Application No.73 of 2025
S. Sounder ... Fourth respondent
in Review Application No.74 of 2025
S. Bhuvaneswaran ... Fourth respondent
in Review Application No.75 of 2025
T. Kumaresan ... Fourth respondent
in Review Application No.76 of 2025
Shanthi ... Fourth respondent
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
in Review Application No.77 of 2025
R. Manohar ... Fourth respondent
in Review Application No.78 of 2025
COMMON PRAYER: Review Applications filed under Order XLVII
Rule I r/w. Section 114 of CPC., to review the order dated 15/12/2023
made by this Court in W.P.No.31737, 35510, 35511, 35512, 40177 of
2016.
For petitioners ... Mr.Mr.K.Sakthivel
for Mr.Durai Gunasekaran
For respondents ... Ms.P.Rajarajeswari
Government Advocate
for R.R.1 to 3
No appearance
for R.4 in all the petitions
-----
COMMON ORDER
Instant Review Applications are filed to review the common order
dated 15/12/2023 made in W.P.Nos.31737, 35510, 35511, 35512, 40177
and 40178 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
2. The prayer sought for in writ petition Nos.35509 to 35513, 31737,
40177 and 40178 or 2016 were to direct the respondents to refix the
seniority of the petitioners above their immediate juniors/fourth respondents
therein and also to give all the benefits from the date of promotion of the
fourth respondent in all the writ petitions.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, this Court, vide,
order, dated 15/12/2023, disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to
the petitioners therein, to submit individual or joint representations to the
first respondent therein and on receipt of the same, first respondent was
directed to consider the representations along with the representation
already given by the petitioners through their Association dated 29/9/2008
and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
twelve weeks thereafter.
4. Heard Mr.K.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Ms.P.Rajarajeswari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to
3. There is no representation on behalf of the fourth respondent in all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
Review Petitions.
5. Review Applications ywere filed mainly on the ground that under
similar conditions, this Court, vide, order dated 23/7/2023, in a batch of
writ Petition Nos.2751, 2752, 4362 to 4366, 7281, 7283 and 7284 of 2015
directed to upgrade the post of the Secondary Grade Teachers in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14/6/2002 with all consequential benefits.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 to 3 would submit that even though orders were passed on 15/12/2023,
none of the petitioners therein have given any representations. Without
doing so, the petitioners have straight away approached this Court by way
of the instant Review Petitions.
7. Perused the entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
8. Review of an order can be made only on the grounds envisaged in
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable to
writ proceedings as well, and the same reads thus:-
“Application for review of judgment -(1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred
(b). by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c). by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which after the 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, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
the order."
9. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with Review and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
the same reads thus:
"Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed by hits Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court
of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment
to the Court which passed the decree or made the
order, and the Court make such order thereon as it
thinks fit.
10. In MALLEESWARI Vs. K. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER (2025
SCC ONLINE SC 1927), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held
as follows:-
15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal
cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by
the statute or the rules having the force of a statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it
is conferred by law on the authority or the Court.
Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with
the power of review of the courts. The power of
review is different from appellate power and is
subject to the following limitations to maintain the
finality of judicial decisions:
15.1 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 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate
powers, which may enable an appellate court to
correct all manner of errors committed by the
subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 of 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.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the
correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
Such powers can be exercised within the limits
specified in the statute governing the exercise of
power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its
own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the
general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered.6 Hence, it is
invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or
to correct grave and palpable errors.
....
17. Having noticed the distinction between
the power of review and appellate power, we
restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction.
Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important
matter or evidence is a ground available if it is
demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due
diligence, this evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced by the party at
the time, the original decree or order was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record may be invoked if there is something more
than a mere error, and it must be the one which is
manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is
a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.9 An
error which has to be established by a long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other
sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient
on grounds at least analogous to those specified in
the other two categories.”
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has repeatedly held in
various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an
appeal and it can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face
of the record. Review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope
and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere
disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for
invoking the same. Moreover, without submitting any representations, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
directed by this Court, the review petitioners have straight away
approached this Court, to alter the judgment in view of the order passed in
W.P.No.2751 of 2015 and batch. The order passed in W.P.No.2751 of
2015 and batch was considered while passing the order in the present Writ
Petition.
12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the instant Review Petition which is in the form of an appeal and
accordingly, these Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(K.SURENDER,J)
8/10/2025
mvs.
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
School Education Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of the School Education
DPI Complex, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Complex, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
K.SURENDER, J
mvs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
Review Application .Nos.
73 to 78 of 2025
Pre-delivery common order made in
Review Application Nos.73 to 78 of 2025
8/10/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:16:51 pm )
