Dismissed

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. Sr.Jayaseeli

Madras HC13 Jan 2015REV.APLW/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review application filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the preceding order denying benefits from the initial appointment date. Consequently, the petition could not be entertained as a review lies only for patent errors.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Vs Sr.Jayaseeli — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE: 13-01-2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

REVIEW APPLICATION (WRIT) NO.3 OF 2015

¶7

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶8

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶9

The Chief Educational Officer, Nilgiris.

¶10

District Educational Officer,

¶11

Gudalur, Nilgiris ..Review Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Sr.Jayaseeli

¶14

The Correspondent, St.Francis Xavier Girls High School,

¶15

Pandalur, Nilgiris-643 233. .. Respondents

¶16

¶17

Prayer: This Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC, praying to review the order, dated 14.7.2014 made in W.P.No.13241 of 2009.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan, GA

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.Fr.A.Xavier Arul Raj for R1

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By order, dated 14.7.2014, this Court allowed the above said writ petition in W.P.No.13241 of 2013, directing the 4^th respondent/4^th applicant herein, to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner, Sr.Jayaseeli working in the second respondent school as Junior Assistant with effect from her initial appointment, i.e. 01.09.2006 with all monetary benefits.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate would submit that without getting prior permission from the School Education Department, the writ petitioner came to be appointed with effect from 01.9.2006, but her appointment was actually approved by G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 29.7.2009 and therefore, she is entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of her approval, i.e. 29.7.2009 and the same were also paid. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that

¶23

¶24

though the post was a sanctioned and vacant as on 01.09.2006, however, prior permission is a must, to fill up the same and on consideration of the proposal sent by the second respondent/school, the government approved her appointment only on and from 29.7.2009. Hence, on this ground, the learned Government Advocate sought to review the order.

¶25

On a perusal of the order, it is revealed that in fact, the above points were considered by this Court while following the decision of this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 532 and the order of the Division Bench made in W.A.(MD) No.308 of 2008. It has been observed by this Court in para 10, which reads as under:

¶26

“10. In the case hand, there is a mistake on the part of the Government in refusing approval. The impugned order was passed only on the pretext that there was a ban in appointment to the post, without realizing the fact that the ban was lifted, even prior to the appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the contention that approval needs to be accorded by the Government cannot be accepted, apart from the fact that the authorities cannot deny approval to appointment of a qualified person in a sanctioned post, that too, when admittedly the vacancy existed on the date of the selection of the petitioner to the said post. Hence, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

¶27

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that there

¶28

¶29

is no need to review the order.

¶30

It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.

¶31

In “ Shanmuga Sundara Nadar versus Tamil Nadu Housing

¶32

Board, rep. by its Chairman, Madras and others ”, reported in 1988 (2) L.W. 57 (MAD.) this Court held as under:-

¶33

"The power to review is a restricted power which authorises the Court to look through the judgment not in order to substitute a fresh or second judgment but in order to correct it or improve it, because some material which it ought to have considered has escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. The Court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case over again because it feels then that the assessment of evidence, etc., done formerly was faulty or even incorrect. An erroneous view of evidence of law is not a ground for review. A wrong exposition of the law, a wrong application of the law and

¶34

¶35

failure to apply the correct law have been held to be not a ground for review."

¶36

7. In “ Meera Bhanja versus Nirmala Kumari Choudhury ”

¶37

reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of review power of High Court, under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. held as under:

¶38

"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 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."

¶39

Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order in order to entertain the present review application.

¶40

Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

Suk 13.01.2015

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

Suk

REVIEW APPLICATION (WRIT) NO.3 OF 2015

¶47

13.1.2015

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. Sr.Jayaseeli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. Sr.Jayaseeli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Mohan, Vs The Chairman

M.Kannosi, S/O Mani, Vs the Supdt. of Police

Thevar Pitchai, Vs the Inspector of Police

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Confederation of Real Estate

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs v.Arun

Tvl.Sri Krishna Electrical and Vs The Assistant Commissioner