Dismissed

T.Muthukumarasamy v. J.Selvasundarraj

Madras HC3 Mar 2017SA(MD)/62/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a review application filed against the judgment in Writ Appeal No.96 of 2011. The court held that a review is not a re-hearing and found no reason to interfere with the earlier decision regarding the petitioner's error in filling a form column for a Police Constable post.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; no costs awarded.

T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2011

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Review Application (MD) No.62 of 2011

¶5

M.Rajapandi ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government

¶8

Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu

¶9

Fort St. George,

¶10

Chennai – 600 012

¶11

2.The Director General of Police, O/o. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents

¶12

Review Application filed under Order 47 rule 1 Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to review the order of judgment dated 10.02.2011 in W.A.(MD) No. 96 of 2011 and to set right the error apparent in it.

¶13

Appeal is filed under clause 15 of Letters patent, against the order dated 18.11.2010 in WP.3588/2010 filed udner Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the memorandum Pa.Mu.Ka.No.22733/Niyamanam/(2) 2009-41, dt.18.2.2010 issued by the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Constable Grade II.

¶14

For Petitioner .. Mr.N.S.Ponniah

¶15

For Respondents .. Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶18

This Petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.96 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench has committed an error in holding that Column No.15 has been wrongly filled up by the petitioner and therefore, even assuming that Column No.15 is rightly filled up, it will not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enure to the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

It is a trite law that a review cannot be a re-hearing. This Court cannot re-hear the decision made by this Court on the earlier occasion. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment made in the Writ Appeal and therefore, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(W)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The Secretary to Government Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 012

¶28

2.The Director General of Police, O/o. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.N.S.Ponniah, Advocate, Sr.No.27363

¶30

ORDER Made in Rev. Appln. (MD) No.62 of 2011 11.08.2011

¶31

¶32

sma/23.8.2011/4c/2p

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Muthukumarasamy v. J.Selvasundarraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Muthukumarasamy v. J.Selvasundarraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Kannan Alias Kannian

Chandran Vs Ramu Pillai

Mebal Kumari Vs Thanka Nadar

G.Abdul Aziz(Died) Vs Sophia Bibi(Died)

Nelson Rajasekaran, Vs Union Bank of India

M.Muthukumar, Vs the Commissioner and