Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Transport Department v. P. Kumaresan
2011-10-29
R.SUDHAKAR
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT :- 1. This Review Application is filed to review the order dated 26.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.18413 of 2010 by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners. The only ground taken by the review petitioners is that this Court disposed of the W.P.No.18413 of 2010 based on the order passed in W.P.No.22510 of 2008. There is no specific direction in the earlier order to appoint the petitioner, the respondent herein. Therefore, this Court erred in directing the review petitioners to appoint the petitioner, the respondent herein, in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 12.9.2008 passed in W.P.No.22510 of 2008 based on the sponsorship made by the second respondent therein. 3. This Court on going through the factual matrix of the case is unable to accept the case of the review petitioners, as admittedly, in W.P.No.22510 of 2008, this Court directed the second respondent therein to consider the claim of the petitioner, the respondent herein. That was considered and rejected on 24.7.2010 and challenged before this Court in the Writ Petition under review. The impugned order was set aside for five reasons as set out in the order. It is not contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that reasons set out in the order under challenge requires to be reviewed on the ground of error apparent in law or facts. 4. While allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for, the consequential direction to consider the claim of the petitioner, the respondent herein, for appointment in terms of the direction given earlier is an emphasis to grant the relief sought for. It cannot be a ground for review. 5. The review petition is not canvassed on the ground that the findings of this Court on merits is perverse or based on an error apparent on the face of record. No plea is raised on the five reasons given by this Court in the order setting aside the impugned proceedings. The Review is based purely on a misconception and misreading of the order. 6. Finding no merits, this Revision Application is dismissed at the admission stage.