Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 790 (MAD)

G. Sundararajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-28

M.JAICHANDREN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2014
Judgment : M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. Seeking to review the order passed in W.A.No.1726 of 2011 dated 12.4.2013 confirming the order of dismissal passed in W.P.No.21797 of 2009, dated 23.12.2010, the petitioner has come before this Court. 2. Mr. M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The scope, ambit and applicability of the letter of the Government dated 1.10.1999 has not been considered. The crucial date for considering the promotion of the petitioner was 15.2.2000. The punishment imposed on him got expired much prior to that. Therefore, there being no currency of punishment, the petitioner ought to have been considered for inclusion in the panel. The petitioner has been wrongly passed over for five continuous years earlier. Considering the same, the review petition will have to be allowed. 3. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, heard the then counsel, who appeared for the petitioner. The issue of the petitioner's case being passed over was considered at length by the learned single judge. Insofar as the issue regarding the currency of punishment starting from 27.1.1998 is concerned, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the said punishment was implemented from 1.1.1989 and therefore the currency of punishment was over only on 31.12.2000. The crucial date for considering the promotion in the year 2000-2001 was 15.2.2001. 4. Similarly, as far as the question of applicability of letter dated 1.10.1999 is concerned, the petitioner has never raised the issue either before the learned single judge or before us. On the contrary, in the counter affidavit filed, it has been stated that the impugned order has been passed after taking note of the said proceedings. In this connection, it is to be noted that the said plea has not been taken before the learned single judge and also specifically at the time of arguing before us. Even in the grounds of writ appeal the same has not been taken. 5. It is settled law that a review cannot amount to re-hearing. The counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, was given ample opportunities to put forth all his submissions. After considering the entire materials available on record, the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. This fact was also observed by us in the order passed in the writ appeal. The counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, was given ample opportunities to put forth all his submissions. After considering the entire materials available on record, the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. This fact was also observed by us in the order passed in the writ appeal. While passing the orders in the writ appeal, this Court has also observed that the case of the petitioner was not maintainable on the ground of delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel. Apart from the same, the contentions raised on merits were also rejected. It was further held that there was no explanation on the part of the petitioner in not challenging the panels drawn for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The petitioner cannot also raise any plea for the first time by way of a review. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain this review application. 6. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.