| |
CDJ 2025 MHC 6990
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : Review Aplw. (MD) No. 138 of 2024 in W.P. (MD) No. 3509 of 2021 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI |
| Parties : M. Velusamy Versus The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V.R. Shanmuganathan for P. Jayaveerapandi, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, R. Murali, R2 to R6, Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, Advocates, R7, No appearance. |
| Date of Judgment : 04-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Civil Procedure Code - Section 114 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., 1908
- Section 114 of C.P.C.
- Rule 35(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules
- Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules
- Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules
- Hindu Religious Institutions, Office and Servants Service Rules, 1964
2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- seniority
- promotion
- demotion
- natural justice
- review
- error apparent on the face of the record
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged his seniority and promotion after being demoted for disciplinary reasons. He raised objections to seniority panels in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020, which were rejected on the ground of delay. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that he had slept on his rights for six years. He filed a review under Order 47 Rules 1‑2 and Section 114 of the CPC, alleging violations of Rule 35(c), 35(f), and natural justice. The Court examined the limited scope of review, emphasizing that only errors apparent on the face of the record or new evidence merit review. It found no such error, noting that the petitioner could have raised the arguments earlier and that the factual findings were not perverse. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., 1908, r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., seeking to review the judgement dated 12.04.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.3509 of 2021 on the file of this Court.)
1. This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3509 of 2021.
2. The petitioner joined the first respondent Temple on consolidated pay in 2002. He was regularised as Office Assistant in 2009, and thereafter promoted as Record Clerk on 11.01.2012.
3. Owing to discrepancies in accounts amounting to Rs.65,295/– (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five only), disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and by order dated 13.05.2003, the petitioner was demoted to the post of Office Assistant as a measure of punishment.
4. In the seniority panel for the year 2014, he was placed at Serial No.17. Eight juniors were promoted, overlooking him. His objections evoked no response.
5. A fresh panel dated 28.11.2015 placed him at Serial No.3, yet the promotion panel dated 29.10.2015 again promoted five juniors.
6. In the promotion panel dated 21.07.2017, the petitioner was finally promoted. He submitted a representation dated 21.08.2017 seeking refixation of his seniority.
7. Another seniority panel dated 16.12.2020 was published. The petitioner submitted objections on 21.12.2020, but the respondent finalised the list. He challenged the same in W.P.(MD) No.349 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his objections.
8. By proceedings dated 26.02.2021, the objections were rejected on the ground that they were belated by more than five years.
9. The petitioner thereafter challenged the rejection order and the seniority list in W.P.(MD) No.3509 of 2021.
10. This Court, by order dated 12.04.2024, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having slept over his rights for nearly six years, could not seek re-fixation of seniority.
11. The present Review Petition seeks to revisit that order.
Grounds of review:
12. The petitioner contends that his grievance is not against the disciplinary proceedings, but against violation of Rule 35(c) and Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
13. He submits that the Hindu Religious Institutions, Office and Servants Service Rules, 1964 do not provide for fixation of seniority upon reversion and therefore the general rules apply.
14. According to him, under Rule 35(c), a reverted employee should be placed at the top of the lower category; this was not done.
15. It is further argued that the limitation for raising seniority objections does not apply when the authority has committed a “mistake”, which is rectifiable under Rule 35(a).
16. The petitioner also asserts that the impugned proceedings in the writ petition were passed in violation of natural justice.
Scope of review:
17. Before considering the arguments, the limited scope of review requires reiteration.
18. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi ((1997) 8 SCC 715), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise. Only an error apparent on the face of the record can justify review.
19. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati ((2013) 8 SCC 320), the Court held that review lies only for discovery of new and important evidence not available despite due diligence; error apparent on the face of the record; or any analogous sufficient reason. Re-agitation of issues already decided is impermissible.
20. In Review Application No.662 of 2017, this Court by its judgment dated 20.12.2017, reiterated that review cannot serve as a forum to rehear and reargue matters already concluded.
Analysis:
21. None of the grounds raised point to any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 12.04.2024.
22. The interpretation of Rules 35(a), 35(c), and 35(f) was available for argument at the time of hearing the writ petition. Failure to raise or press a particular contention does not create a ground for review.
23. The petitioner seeks a complete re-examination of the factual findings, including delay, seniority placement, and applicability of rules. These require detailed reasoning and adjudication, which fall outside review jurisdiction.
24. The finding of this Court that the petitioner slept over his rights for approximately six years is a factual finding. No perversity or patent illegality is demonstrated.
25. The alleged violation of natural justice was also a ground available earlier and does not constitute “new evidence”.
26. Thus, the present petition amounts to an attempt to reopen the entire writ proceedings, which is impermissible under the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi ((1997) 8 SCC 715), Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati ((2013) 8 SCC 320), and the judgment of this Court in Review Application No.662 of 2017.
27. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground warranting review of the order dated 12.04.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.3509 of 2021.
28. No error apparent on the face of the record is made out.
29. The Review Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
|
| |
