The National Council For v. Tamil Nadu Self Financing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Review Aplw.No.133 of 2017 in W.P.No.999 of 2015 and W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591, 37613 to 37617, 37619, 37703 to 37713, 37688 to 37697, 37698 to 37702, 38808 to 38817, 38818 to 38827, 38958, 38961 to 38967, 36770, 38051 and 38052, 38686, 38946 and 38947, 39161 and 39162, 39236 to 39240, 33674, 39141 and 39142, 39569 and 39570, 39701, 39702 and 39716, 39091 and 39092, 39643 and 39644, 39678, 40011, 40012, 40015, 41047, 40262 and 40263, 40213, 38272 to 38277, 37683 to 37687, 40120 to 40126, 40515, 27404, 41969, 39185, 41800 and 41801, 42175 and 42176, 38075 to 38078, 37798 and 37799, 32866, 44253 of 2016 and W.P.No.8696 of 2015 AND WMP.Nos.32205 to 32214 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32246 to 32250 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37613 to 37617 of 2016, WMP.No.

32254 of 2016 in W.P.No.37619 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32316 to 32326 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37703 to 37713 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32301 to 32310 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37688 to 37697 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32311 to 32315 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37698 to 37702 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33265 to 33274 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38808 to 38817 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33275 to 33284 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38818 to 38827 of 2016, WMP.No.33367 of 2016 in W.P.No.38958 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33384 to 33390 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38961 to 38967 of 2016, WMP.No.31611 of 2016 in W.P.No.36770 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32610 and 32611 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38051 and 38052 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33138 and 33139 of 2016 in W.P.No.38686 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33353 and 33354 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38946 and 38947 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33532 and 33533 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39161 and 39162 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33597 to 33601 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.

39236 to 39240 of 2016, WMP.No.39353 of 2016 in W.P.No.33674 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33511 and 33512 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39141 and 39142 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33854 and 33855 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39569 and 39570 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33974, 33975 and 33978 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39701, 39702 and 39716 of 2016, WMP.Nos.

and 33481 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39091 and 39092 of 2016, WMP.Nos.33917 and 33918 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.39643 and 39644 of 2016, WMP.No.33948 of 2016 in W.P.No.39678 of 2016, WMP.No.34073 of 2016 in W.P.No.40011 of 2016, WMP.No.34074 of 2016 in W.P.No.40012 of 2016, WMP.No.34078 of 2016 in W.P.No.40015 of 2016, WMP.No.35050 of 2016 in W.P.No.41047 of 2016, WMP.Nos.34282 and 34283 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.40262 and 40263 of 2016, WMP.No.34246 of 2016 in W.P.No.40213 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32817 to 32822 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38272 to 38277 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32294 to 32298 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37683 to 37687 of 2016, WMP.Nos.34187 to 34193 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.40120 to 40126 of 2016, WMP.No.34547 of 2016 in W.P.No.40515 of 2016, WMP.Nos.23609 and 23610 of 2016 in W.P.No.27404 of 2016, WMP.No.35925 of 2016 in W.P.No.41969 of 2016, WMP.No.33559 of 2016 in W.P.No.

39185 of 2016, WMP.Nos.35778 and 35779 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.41800 and 41801 of 2016, WMP.Nos.36080 and 36081 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.42175 and 42176 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32632 to 32635 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.38075 to 38078 of 2016, WMP.Nos.32396 and 32397 of 2016 in W.P.Nos.37798 and 37799 of 2016, WMP.No.38400 of 2016 in W.P.No.32866 of 2016, WMP.Nos.38099 and 38100 of 2016 in W.P.No.44253 of 2016 and MP.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.8696 of 2015 Rev.Aplw.No.

1. The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

2. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jnanabarathy Campus Road, Opp. to National Law School, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore - 560 072.

... Applicants vs.

1. Tamil Nadu Self Financing College of

Education Management Association, Rep. by its Secretary, Mrs.S.Vijayakumar.

2. The Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University, Rep. by its Registrar, Lady Wellington College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ... Respondents Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Article Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C, to review the order made in W.P.No.999 of 2015 dated 23.02.2016, set aside the same and to consequently decide the same on merits.

For Applicants : Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned Counsel Assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan For Respondents : Mr.U.Venkatesan (for R2) W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591 of 2016

1. AVS College of Education, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, T.Selvam ... Petitioner in W.P.37582/16

2. Bharathiyar College of Education, rep. by its Secretary, C.Murugan ... Petitioner in W.P.37583/16

3. Susila College of Education, rep. by its Correspondent Dr.K.Selvakumaran ... Petitioner in W.P.37584/16

4. Our Lady College of Education, rep. by its Secretary, Dr.S.Peter ... Petitioner in W.P.37585/16

5. Krishna College of Education,

rep. by its Correspondent, C.Perumal ... Petitioner in W.P.37586/16

6. Sivanthi College of Education, rep. by its Chairman M.Murugesan ... Petitioner in W.P.37587/16

7. Sri Rangachinnammal College of Education, rep. by its Secretary, R.P.Sripathi ... Petitioner in W.P.37588/16

8. Sri Ganesh College of Education, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, M.Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.37589/16

9. Sri Ganesh College of Education, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, M.Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.37590/16

10. Sri Sowbackiya College of Education, rep. by its Correspondent, RM.B.Shanmuhanathan ... Petitioner in W.P.37591/16 vs.

1. The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

2. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jnanabarathy Campus Road, Opp. to National Law School, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru - 560 072.

... Respondents Prayer: WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any manner implementing the NCTE (Recognition

Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 prior to the completion of the process of the Committee constituted by the First respondent as per Public Notice dated 03.10.2016 for giving recommendations for alterations, modifications or deletions to the regulations of 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel in all W.Ps.

For Respondents : Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel in all W.Ps.

Assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan COMMON

ORDER

(Order of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for all parties, except W.P.No.8696 of 2015 filed by Tamilnadu Catholic Educational Association, rep by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer, Fr.S.Arulappan, for a writ of declaration, declaring Clauses 8(1), 8(4)(i)(iii), 8(11), 10(1)(2) and 11 and the related Norms in Clauses 1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1(iii), 5.1, 5.3 in Appendix - 4 and Clauses 3.1, 4.3, 4.4, 6.1 of Appendix-5 of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, as ultra vires of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, illegal, arbitrary, in respect of the Unaided Member Teacher Education Institutions of the petitioner, conducting B.Ed., and M.Ed., Programmes, as listed in Annexure to the said petition, all the writ petitions listed today were taken up for

hearing alongwith review application No.133 of 2017, filed to review the order made in W.P.No.999 of 2015, etc. batch dated 23.02.2016. Registry is directed to de-link W.P.No.8696 of 2015.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the instant writ petitioners were also members of Tamil Nadu Self Financing College of Education Management Association, represented by its Secretary, Mrs.S.Vijayakumar and Association of the Unaided B.Ed., College and Teacher Training Institutions of Pondicherry Union Territory, in W.P.No.999 of 2015, etc, batch.

3. Earlier on 14.07.2017, we passed the following order. Mrs.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel, assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan, counsel on record for National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi/Review Petitioner, submitted that, when W.P.Nos.999 of 2015 etc. batch, were heard and disposed of by a Hon'ble Division Bench on 23.02.2016, no exercise was carried out by NCTE to revisit some of the regulations of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2014. However, taking note of submissions, the Hon'ble Division Bench, by observing that sufficient time should be granted to the institutions to implement the Regulations, after revisitation, disposed of the writ petitions. She prayed for review of the common order.

2. However, by inviting the attention of this court to Public Notice dated 03.10.2016, decision of the Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, in the 324th meeting, and confirmation thereof, in the subsequent 325th meeting of SRC - NCTE dated 19th - 20th December, 2016, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that, some exercise taken by the National Council for Teacher Education, which is reflected in the Public Notice dated 03.10.2016. He further submitted that there was no merit to review of the common order.

3. Public Notice dated 03.10.2016 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, reads thus.

NCTE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (A Statutory Body of Government of India) Hans Bhawan, Wing II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 Website : www.nctc-india.org Dated: 3.10.2016 PUBLIC NOTICE A Committee has been constituted by the Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to examine the issues relating to infirmities, anomalies etc. in the NCETE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014. The Committee will have the following forms of references:- (a) The committee is required to revisit the NCTE Regulation, 2014 in light of experience of working with them for over one year.

(b) The Committee is required to consider various representations received on the same from time to time, court cases against NCTE, and various suggestions received from internal divisions of the NCTE. (c) In light of (a) and (b) above, the Committee is

required to recommend alterations, modifications or deletions in various provisions of Regulations, 2014. The comments and suggestion of the Stakeholder and General Public are invited for consideration of the aforesaid Committee.

The comments and suggestion may be sent to the NCTE, New Delhi through e-mail address regulation@ncteindia.org or by post latest by 30.10.2016. MEMBER SECRETARY

4. In the 324th meeting of SRC-NCTE dated 7th-8th December, 2016, the Committee has considered Agenda No.118, which is as follows:

(136 Cases) B.Ed Tamil Nadu Interim Stay Cases TN 1.Ask the Lawyer to apprise the Court that, in the light of instructions recently received from NCTE (HQ), we have decided not to conduct inspection in this case.

2.That being so, the Court may be requested to vacate the interim stay and dismiss the petition as infructuous.

3.Inform the NCTE (HQ) of this decision.

4.Wherever we have filed review or appeal petitions, they may be withdrawn.

From the above, it could be deduced that instructions seemed to have been given by NCTE Head Quarters, not to conduct inspection in 136 cases. Decision has also been taken that, wherever NCTE has filed review or appeal petitions, they may be dismissed as withdrawn. The said decision taken on 7th - 8th December, 2016 in the 324th Meeting of the SRC-NCTE has been confirmed in the

subsequent 325th Meeting dated 19th - 20th December, 2016.

4. When attention of the above was brought to the notice of Mrs.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, she prayed time to get suitable instructions from NCET, New Delhi. Ms.P.Angelin Golda, Under Secretary, SRC-NCTE, submitted that she will produce entire records pertaining to the instructions issued by NCET, New Delhi and the decision taken by SRC-NCTE, Bangaluru.

5. Mrs.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for NCET, New Delhi, shall communicate the orders of this court. Post the matter on 28.07.2017 at 2.15 p.m."

4. On this day, when the Review Application is listed for further hearing, by inviting the attention of this Court to a letter dated 30.11.2016 of the Under Secretary, (Regulation) NCTE, addressed to the Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE Odisha, a copy of which is marked to the Regional Directors of Northern, Eastern & Southern Regional Committees, NCTE, Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for NCTE, New Delhi, submitted that NCTE, New Delhi has not issued any instructions to the Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, not to conduct inspection of 136 cases of Teacher Education Institutions in Tamilnadu. She also submitted that it is the

decision of the Southern Committee, Bangalore to withdraw, any review or appeal filed. According to her, no instructions have been given by the NCTE, New Delhi, to withdraw any appeal or review, filed

5. On the basis of the letter dated 27.07.2017 of the Under Secretary (Legal), NCTE, New Delhi, addressed to her, learned counsel for NCTE, New Delhi, further submitted that decision on the public notice dated 03.10.2016, is expected to be finalised shortly and she prayed time till September 2017.

6. Review has been filed on the sole ground that a Hon'ble Division Bench has disposed of W.P.No.999 of 2015, etc. batch on the premise that an exercise was carried out by NCTE to revisit some of the regulations of (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014, which according to her is not correct.

7. Earlier, in our order dated 14.07.2017, we have extracted the public notice dated 03.10.2016. Fact that the draft report of the Review Committee constituted as per Public Notice dated 03.10.2016, is yet to be finalized, is reflected in the letter dated 27.07.2017 of the Under Secretary (Legal), NCTE, New Delhi, addressed to the learned

counsel for the review petitioner. For brevity, letter dated 27.07.2017, is extracted hereunder No.F.64-7/2015/NCTE/Legal-VOL-III dated 27th July, 2017 To Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocate, Chamber:322, C.K.Daphtary, Chamber Block, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Phone No.9868716588, 981034981 Subject:

Request to submit of reply queries pointed out by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in review petition and in 156 batch cases on the final hearing dt.14.7.2017. Madam, Please refer your e-mail dt. 23.7.2017 on the above noted subject.

2. The matter was processed at NCTE (HQ) and the Regulation Division of NCTE (HQ) in found that the draft report of the Review Committee constituted as per Public Notice dt. 3.10.2016 is expected to be finalized in the last next meeting which is being scheduled tentatively in the month of August 2017. On receipt of report the final decision will be taken by the NCTE.

3. As far as issuance of letter for withdrawal of review petition, it is submitted that no such letter for withdrawal of review petition is issued by the NCTE (HQ). Moreover, it is also to state that SRC NCTE has taken decision at their own level in the 324th meeting of SRC NCTE dated 7th-8th December 2016, to review petition or appeal.

4. You are requested to kindly submit the reply of queries on behalf of NCTE in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 28.7.2017. Yours faithfully, (Dr.Sumita Das Majumder) Under Secretary (Legal) Copy to: The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Janna Bharathi Campus Road, Opp. National Law School, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore - 560 072 and direct Ms.Angeline Golda to report at Madras High Court with all relevant records."

8. Though, Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for NCTE, New Delhi, submitted that no instructions have been issued by NCTE, New Delhi, not to conduct any inspection of the 136 institutions in Tamil Nadu, where there is stay, perusal of the letter dated 30.11.2016 of the Under Secretary (Regulation), NCTE, New Delhi, copy of which, marked to the Regional Directors of Northern, Western and Southern Regional Committee (NCTE), shows that NCTE, New Delhi, has stated that inspection of the recognized Teacher Education institutions can be conducted only under Section 13 of the NCTE by the NCTE Headquarters, and not by the Regional Committees, and based on this letter Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, seemed to have taken a decision not to conduct any inspection. Letter dated 30. 11.2016, only clarifies the authority, who is empowered to make inspection.

9. Southern Regional Committee, NCTE has also taken a decision that wherever review or appeal has been filed, the same may be withdrawn. With reference to the word 'may', used in the decision of Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, on the 324th Meeting on 7th -8th, December, 2016, though the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that it is not the decision of NCTE, New Delhi, the

same does not merit consideration for the reason that even taking it for granted that it is the decision of the Regional Committee, the fact that the draft report of the Review Committee constituted as per Public Notice dated 03.10.2016 is yet to be finalised, and that the same substantiates the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents in the review petitions. Thus it is evident that when W.P.Nos.999 of 2015 etc, batch was heard and disposed of on 23.02.2016, an exercise has been carried out by NCTE, New Delhi, and that the same is yet to be finalized.

10. Yet another fact to be taken note of is that Mrs.Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for the review petitioners herself has prayed time till September 2017, for finalising the report and though she has prayed for time till December 2017, for listing of the matters, no purpose would be served by adjourning the writ petitions, and the review petition.

11. Review can be made only if there is any mistake or apparent on the face of the record. Reference can be made to a few decisions

on the point of review.

(i) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. Vs. Pradyunmansinghji Arjunsinghji reported in AIR (1970) SC 1273, held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Nagaraj & Ors.etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.etc. reported in 1993 Supp.

(4) SCC 595, held:

"19. Review literally and even judicially means reexamination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even

when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. (ii) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma , reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047, the Honble Supreme Court held that, "there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.

The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

(iii) In yet another decision in RAJINDERSINGH Vs. Lt. GOVERNOR, reported in 2005 (13) SCC 289, at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law is well settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. Power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. It was further held that Courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order, when there exists an error on the face of record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases.

(iv) In Union of India v. Kamal Sengupta reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 14 and 15, has held that, "14. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even

after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier.

15. The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."

12. On the revisit of some of the regulations of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2015, decision is yet to be taken. Going through the material on record and in the light of the above decisions and discussion, we are of the view that the review applicants have not made out any valid grounds to review the order made in W.P.No.999 of 2015 etc batch, dated 23.02.2016. There is no error apparent on the face of record, nor miscarriage of justice.

13. Mr.P.Srinivas, one of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591 of 2016, submitted that in all the writ petitions listed today, the institutions/ petitioners have sought for a mandamus forbearing the respondents herein, in any manner implementing the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014, prior to the completion of the process of the Committee constituted by the First respondent, as per Public Notice dated 03.10.2016 for giving recommendations for alterations, modifications or deletions to the regulations of 2014.

14. Placing on record, the abovesaid submission, in the light of the decision now rendered by this Court in Rev. Application No.133 of 2017, and the decision of the NCTE, New Delhi, reflected in the letter dated 27.07.2017, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the issuance of mandamus, as prayed for, till the draft of the review committee constituted as per the public notice dated 03.10.2016, is finalised.

15. While dismissing the Review Application No.133 of 2017 and allowing W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591 of 2016 etc batch of writ petitions, we make it clear that depending upon the decision taken by NCTE,

New Delhi on the draft report of the Review Committee constituted as per Public Notice dated 03.10.2016, further proceedings under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, can be issued, and action, can be taken, if required.

16. In the result, Review Application is dismissed and W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591 of 2016 etc batch of writ petitions, except W.P.No.8696 of 2015, are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.K., J.) (M.M.S., J.) 28.07.2017 Index: Yes ars

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

AND M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

ars Review Aplw.No.133 of 2017 in W.P.No.999 of 2015 and W.P.Nos.37582 to 37591, 37613 to 37617, 37619, 37703 to 37713, 37688 to 37697, 37698 to 37702, 38808 to 38817, 38818 to 38827, 38958, 38961 to 38967, 36770, 38051 and 38052, 38686, 38946 and 38947, 39161 and 39162, 39236 to 39240, 33674, 39141 and 39142, 39569 and 39570, 39701, 39702 and 39716, 39091 and 39092, 39643 and 39644, 39678, 40011, 40012, 40015, 41047, 40262 and 40263, 40213, 38272 to 38277, 37683 to 37687, 40120 to 40126, 40515, 27404, 41969, 39185, 41800 and 41801, 42175 and 42176, 38075 to 38078, 37798 and 37799, 32866, 44253 of 2016 and W.P.No.8696 of 2015 28.07.2017