This review application challenged the dismissal of a quo-warranto writ petition regarding a professor's qualifications. The High Court dismissed the review, holding the petitioner had no fresh ground and the previous order was not erroneous on its face.
Review application dismissed; costs reduced to Rs.5,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR Review Application No.700 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.34493 of 2017 in W.P.No.27011 of 2017 V.Mariappan .. Petitioner
-vs-
3.The Director, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
5.Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Rep., by its Principal, Nedungadu, Karaikal, U.T.Puducherry-609 603.
6.P.Thambidurai, Principal In-Charge, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Nedungadu, Karaikal, Puducherry-609 603. .. Respondents
Review Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the order dated 03.11.2017 made in W.P.No.27011 of 2017.
WP.NO.27011/2017:
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, questioning under what authority the 6th respondent is holding the post of Professor in Departmnt of Computer Science Engineering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, and officiating as Principa-in-charge of Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Puducherry on deputation basis, in view of lack of required qualifications as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education.
For Applicant : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan
For RR1 to 3 : Mr.Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader
No Appearance : For RR4 and 5
For Respondent-6: Mr.S.Saravanakumar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
Heard Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan, learned counsel for the review applicant; and Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.
2.This review application has been filed to review the order and direction issued in W.P.No.27011 of 2017, dated 03.11.2017.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the review applicant/writ petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of quowarranto questioning under what authority the 6th respondent is holding the post of Professor in Department of Computer Science Engineering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry and officiating as Principal-in-charge of Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Puducherry on deputation basis, in view of lack of required qualifications as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and as per the norms of All
India Council for Technical Education.
4.The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 03.11.2017, on the ground that it is the second writ petition filed by the review applicant/writ petitioner for the very same relief and in that process, cost was also imposed on the writ petitioner.
5.The case of the review applicant is that the first writ petition filed by him, viz., W.P.No.17296 of 2016, was disposed of by order dated 04.05.2016, by directing the representation made by the review applicant/writ petitioner to be looked into and therefore, the review applicant would be entitled to maintain the second writ petition questioning under what authority, the 6th respondent is holding the post of Professor in the Department of Computer Science Engineering in Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry and officiating as Principal-incharge of the Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Puducherry.
6.The learned counsel for the review applicant would further submit that since decision was not taken by the Government based on the review applicant's representation, he is entitled to maintain the writ petition, which is the subject matter of this review application.
7.It is to be noted that the prayer sought for in W.P.No.17296 of 2016 was for a writ of quo-warranto, which is identical to the prayer sought for in W.P.No.27011 of 2017, though slightly differently worded. Thus, though the petitioner sought for issuance of writ of quo-warranto, the Court granted lesser relief by directing the representation to be considered. The direction issued by the Court was taken note of and the Government of Puducherry has passed an order on 25.07.2016 saying that, applicant's representation dated 14.10.2015 has become infructuous, as the 6th respondent has already been repatriated to the Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry. The 6th respondent filed W.P.No.38141 of 2016 assailing proceedings regarding repatriation and this writ petition was disposed of by order dated 02.08.2017.
8.Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan, would contend that the representation has not been considered and in fact, the representation has been disposed of as having become infructuous.
9.In any event, the order dated 25.07.2016 having not been challenged, the question of the writ petitioner now maintaining the second writ petition for the very same relief as that of the earlier writ petition is not sustainable. Apart from that, the
petitioner has not been able to point out any error which is apparent on the face of the order so as to exercise review jurisdiction.
10.For the above reasons, we find no merits in the review application.
11.In the result, this review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.After we dictated the order, Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan, submitted that the Court may consider waiving the cost which has been imposed. We find no ground to waive the cost. However, taking note of the submissions, we reduce the cost from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the review applicant within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
Review Application No.700 of 2017 in W.P.No.27011 of 2017
nmi(co) nr 18/09/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second writ petition for quo-warranto is maintainable given theEarlier order directed representation consideration.
Whether the incorrect judgment is evident on the face of the order to exercise review jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Mariappan
Chief Secretary to Govt., Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry
Secretary to Govt. (Higher & Tech. Education), Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry
Director, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Puducherry
Pondicherry Engineering College
Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology
T.S.Sivagnanam
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
