Dismissed

R.Sathiya v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Apr 2025REV.APLC(MD)/70/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of a writ appeal order concerning an appointment challenged by an unsuccessful candidate. The court found no error apparent on the face of its earlier order, dismissed the review, closed connected petitions, and noted the petitioner may implead herself in a pending challenge to the appointment.

What did the court decide?

None granted; review application dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

R.Sathiya Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Rev.Appl(MD).No.70 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

Rev.Application(MD).No.70 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.6853 & 6854 of 2025

R.Sathiya

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.S.Saranya

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 r/w. Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 114 of Cr.P.C. to review the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.A.(MD).No.2627 of 2024.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.J.Anandkumar

¶17

For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Rev.Appl(MD).No.70 of 2025

¶21

This review application is filed to review the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.A.(MD).No.2627 of 2024.

¶22

2.We find no errors apparent on the order passed by us on 20.12.2024 for the sake of reviewing the same. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present review application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

3.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that another unsuccessful candidate has now challenged the appointment order of the 4^th respondent, which is said to be pending. In case, the petitioner intends to raise any objection with regard to the 4^th respondent’s appointment, it is always open to her to implead herself and raise such objections.

¶24

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Rev.Appl(MD).No.70 of 2025

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶31

3.The Tahsildar, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Rev.Appl(MD).No.70 of 2025

¶35

M.S.RAMESH, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶36

hvk

¶37

Rev.Application (MD).No.70 of 2025

¶38

28.04.2025

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Sathiya v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sathiya v. the District Collector

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

Vignesh Vs The District Collector

Palanivelu Vs The Tahsildar

Baratha Muthu Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

P. Ashok Kumar Vs The District Collector

The Chief Educational Officer Vs Benita Jose

The District Educational Officer Vs a Jemima