Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 223 (MAD)

Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Subramanian

2019-01-23

J.NISHA BANU, R.SUBBIAH

body2019
ORDER : R. SUBBIAH, J. *********** 1. Seeking to review the Judgment dated 18.01.2017 made in W.A. (MD).Nos.278 and 279 of 2015, the petitioners herein have come forward with the present Review Applications. 2. Earlier, the respondents herein filed W.P.(MD).Nos.4620 and 4621 of 2011, challenging the order of the first respondent therein and for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to give retrospective promotion to the respondents herein as Junior Assistant by following 10% reservation, pursuant to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.585, RD & LA Department, dated 12.04.1984 and G.O.Ms.No.349, P&AR Department, dated 12.04.1984. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 25.03.2014, while disposing of the said Writ Petitions, directed the respondents therein to take appropriate steps to fix the seniority of the respondents herein treating their service as regular and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order was questioned by the official respondents by filing W.A.(MD).Nos.278 and 279 of 2015, which were dismissed on 18.01.2017, directing the official respondents to implement the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The official respondents have, therefore, come forward with the present Review Applications for the relief stated supra. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the available records carefully. 5. Before venturing into any discussion on the rival contentions, we may point out that the power of this Court in matters of review is very limited. Such power can be exercised only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or in the event an order is not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, we may usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Union of India, rep by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:- "10. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:- "10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320 , [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows" "12. 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 there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......." In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles as under: "19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the principles: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute: 20.1 When the review will be maintainable:- (i). Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii). Mistake or error apparent on the face of record; (iii). Any other sufficient reason. The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275. 20.2. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii). Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii). Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv). Review is not maintainable, unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v). A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi). The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii). The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii). The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix). Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, we may mention that the review is not an appeal in disguise. We cannot consider any of the new materials, which were not placed before the Court, argued and not considered. Applying the said legal principles to the facts of the present case, if we analyze the grounds of review, we find no error apparent on the face of record in the order of the Division Bench. Thus, the present Review Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Applications are dismissed. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, it is always open to them to file an appeal against the Judgment passed in the Writ Appeals, if the Review Petitioners so desire. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.