Review of the dismissal of a writ appeal challenging appointment of respondents as Village Assistants. The applicant argued an over-age ground not raised earlier and unsupported by materials. The Court held review is not an appeal in disguise and dismissed the application.
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.
Rev. Appl. No.94 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Rev. Appl.No.94 of 2021
R.Shanmugam ... Petitioner
-vs-
PRAYER : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 15.02.2021 made in W.A.No.3294 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Spl. Govt. Pleader for RR 1, 2 & 5 : M/s.Y.Kavitha for M/s.PVS Giridhar Associates for RR 3 and 4 * * * * *
Page 1 of 5
Rev. Appl. No.94 of 2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J )
This review application is filed seeking review of the judgment
of this Court dated 15.02.2021 in W.A.No.3294 of 2019.
W.P.No.19863 of 2009 wherein he challenged the proceedings of the second respondent with regard to the appointment made to the third and fourth respondents in the writ petition as Village Assistants at Kondakunthanahalli and Athiyur respectively vide proceedings dated 13.03.2008. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.07.2019 considering all the grounds on which the applicant challenged the proceedings of the second respondent giving appointment to respondents 3 and 4 as Village Assistants by the impugned order. The said order was challenged in the writ appeal W.A.No.3294 of 2019, which was also dismissed.
Page 2 of 5
Rev. Appl. No.94 of 2021
that the contention of the review applicant before the appellate Court that
the third respondent had crossed the maximum age on the date of interview was not considered by the Division Bench in the writ appeal.
that even in the writ petition, the applicant has not raised the ground that the third respondent had crossed the prescribed age limit at the time of interview. The applicant though has raised this as one of the grounds in the writ appeal, no document or materials were placed before the Court to show that the third respondent was over-aged. Since the petitioner has not raised the issue in the writ petition, even the appellate Court would not have permitted the petitioner to raise the said ground in the writ appeal.
Page 3 of 5
Rev. Appl. No.94 of 2021
Unless there is an error apparent on the face of record this Court is not
expected to entertain the review application. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any ground to review the judgment of this Court in the writ appeal.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (S.S.K., J.) 07.08.2024
Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No
sra
To
Page 4 of 5
Rev. Appl. No.94 of 2021
S.S.SUNDAR, J. and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
(sra)
Rev. Appl.No.94 of 2021
07.08.2024
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal judgment could be reviewed on the ground that a respondent was over-aged at the interview when the ground was not raised in the writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Shanmugam
The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore
The Tahsildar, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur
V.Velayutham
S.Vadivukkarasi
The Employment Exchange Officer, Employment Exchange, Vellore
S.S.Sundar
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
