State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs A. Joseph

V.M. Velumani, J.—Heard Mr.V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the respondent.

This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking to review the order passed in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009, dated 06.08.2014.

The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009.

The respondent herein filed W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009 seeking for a direction to the petitioners herein to appoint him in the post of Lecturer in Political Science with consequential benefits.

The second petitioner was permitted to recruit the Lecturers in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and College of Education to fill up 1195 vacancies, in various subjects. For the post of Lecturer in Political Science, five vacancies were existed. The respondent is fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in the Government Arts and Science Colleges and he was called for certificate verification and interview. He had secured 36 marks in total viz., 29 marks in certificate verification and 7 marks in the interview. In spite of the same, he was not selected and appointed. Hence, he filed W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009 for the relief stated supra.

At the time of final hearing of the writ petition, it was submitted on behalf of the review petitioners that the respondent was considered for appointment for two vacancies in General Turn Quota. Out of two vacancies, one post was reserved for Hearing impaired candidates and other post was reserved for General Turn (Women). Therefore, the respondent was not selected and appointed. The vacancy reserved for Hearing impaired was not filled up, as no suitable candidate was available. The vacancy reserved for General Turn (Women) was filled up by one M.Vivekanandan, as no suitable Women candidate was available. The said M.Vivekanandan belonged to backward class community. This Court did not accept the submissions of the petitioners that the reservation for Hearing impaired was made, as no such reservation was notified in the advertisement. This Court also did not accept the submissions of the petitioners that in the Notification, by inadvertence, the reservation for Hearing impaired was not mentioned and the respondent, by inadvertence, was not selected and appointed. During the hearing of the writ petition, the respondent was selected and appointed.

In view of the rejection of contention of the petitioners, this Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the second petitioner, as the second petitioner acted in a very causal manner. The petitioners filed M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009, to recall the said order, in respect of awarding cost of Rs.10,000/-. This Court, by order dated 09.09.2014, dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition with liberty to file a Review Petition.

In the present Review Application, Mr.V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners contended that the reservation for Hearing impaired was made as per the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 19.11.2007, passed in W.P. No.27231 of 2007. The said reservation, by inadvertence, was not mentioned in the Notification issued notifying the vacancies. The learned Special Government Pleader also contended that this fact was mentioned in the counter affidavit filed in the year 2014 in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009. This Court did not take note of the counter affidavit. The order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- suffer from error on the face of the record, as this Court failed to consider the order of the Division Bench of this Court. The reason given by this Court that without valid reason, the petitioners did not give appointment to the respondent, suffer from patent error.

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order of this Court, dated 06.08.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009, is valid and legal and there is no error, which requires to review the said order.

I have carefully considered the materials on record and the order passed by this Court.

The scope of review is very limited. It is not an re-hearing the entire issue and it is not an appeal, an earlier order of this Court can be reconsidered only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In this case, from the records, it is seen that the petitioners have filed counter affidavit in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009. In the said counter affidavit, the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 19.11.2007, made in W.P. No.27231 of 2007 with regard to reservation of Hearing impaired had been stated and in view of the said order, one post of General Turn (Women) was reserved for Hearing impaired. This Court failed to consider the order of this Court, dated 19.11.2007, passed in W.P. No.27231 of 2007.

This Court in the order sought to be reviewed, has held that the second petitioner without assigning any valid reason and in a very casual manner, did not select and appoint the respondent. But, this Court failed to consider that the explanation of the second petitioner that by inadvertence, the respondent herein was not considered and appointed. A failure to consider the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 19.11.2007, passed in W.P. No.27231 of 2007, the explanation given by the second petitioner and the selection and appointment order issued to the respondent before conclusion of the final hearing of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, in the order dated 06.08.2014, imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/- on the second petitioner.

In view of the above, the order dated 06.08.2014, passed in W.P. (MD) No. 6328 of 2007, is liable to be re-considered only with regard to awarding cost of Rs.10,000/- on the second petitioner.

In the result, imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- in the order, dated 06.08.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 6328 of 2009, alone is set aside. The Review Application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.