Review of a 2009 writ appeal judgment refusing sanction of a Secondary Grade Teacher post in an aided school. The court held merits cannot be re-appreciated in review, no error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and directed the petitioner to approach the Education Department.
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.
Review Application No.71 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:11.07.2024
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Review Application No.71 of 2009
Thulasinga Mudaliar ..Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Review Application to review the judgment dated 02.02.2009
Review Application No.71 of 2009
passed in W.A. No. 3 of 2009.
For Petitioner :: Mr.V. Sivalingam for Mr.P. Ganesan For Respondents :: Mr.E. Sundaram, Govt Advocate for
R1 to R3
O R D E R
(Made by S.M. SUBRMANIAM,J.)
The judgment dated 02.02.2009 in W.A. No. 3 of 2009 is sought to be reviewed in this review application.
adjudicated in review proceedings. Re-appreciation on merits in review
2\4
Review Application No.71 of 2009
proceedings is impermissible. Posts for Aided Schools are to be sanctioned based on the policy decision of the Government, which has been issued in G.O.Ms. No. 525 School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997. The strength of students has to be taken into consideration for sanction of post based on the annual inspection to be conducted by the competent educational authority. Nonetheless, the judgment in the writ appeal had been delivered on 02.02.2009 and 15 years have elapsed since then. If at all, any grievance exists, the review petitioner has to approoach the competent authority of Education Department for redresssal. Besides, no
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND C. KUMARAPPAN,J. nv
error apparent on the face of record has been established by the petitioner warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the review application stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.J.) (C.K.J.) nv 11.07.2024 To 3\4
Review Application No.71 of 2009
Review Application No.71 of 2009
4\4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record in the writ appeal judgment regarding sanction of a Secondary Grade Teacher post.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thulasinga Mudaliar
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9
Director of Elementary Education, Chennai – 6
District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai
S.M. Subramaniam
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
