A. Mohammed Appas, v. L.S.Churchil Chinnaiah

1/40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders Reserved on : 09.07.2025 Pronouncing orders on : 15.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Review Application Nos.170, 171 and 172 of 2025 Rev.A.No.170 of 2025 1.A. Mohammed Appas 2.A. Bharathi Lakshmi 3.J. Dhanalakshmi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. L.S.Churchil Chinnaiah 2.M.Selvarajan 3.P.Nagalakshmi 4.R.Megala 5.M.Kavitha 6.E.Shakunthala 7.S.Saraswathi

2/40 8.D.Vijayalakshmi 9.R.Hemavathi 10.P.Venkatesan 11.R.Saravanan 12.V.Thenmozhi 13.K.Ramar 14.J.Seyed Mohudoom Beevi 15.K.Sutha 16.V.Kohilavani 17.B.Dhandapani 18.V.Murugalakshmi 19.P.Mariammal Paramasivan 20.G.Gnanaprathayini 21.S.Sumathi 22.M.Nalini 23.P.Mageshwari 24.R.Padmavathy 25.S.Priyanka 26.R.Aruna

3/40 27.K.Parimala 28.N.Thambuswamy 29.G.Mathavaraj 30.J P.Ravi 31.S.Preetha 32.K.Sulochana 33.M.Thangadurai 34.A.Amutha 35.R.Anbu 36.M.Janaki 37.N.Usharani 38.R K.Merlin Rajini 39.N.Deepa 40.K C.Janani 41.K.Muppidathi @ Selvarani 42.S.Uma Maheswari 43.M.Ganesan 44.K.Gayathri 45.M.Subramani

4/40 46.G.Rosita Rexalin 47.V.Kavitha 48.T.Anandhi 49.J.Indumathi 50.A.Rameshkumar 51.G.Vinoth Kumar 52.N.Vijayamala 53.M.Subramani 54.J.R.Srinivasan 55.A.Muthuameena 56.K.Udhayakumar 57.S.Soundararajan 58.P S.Thyagarajan 59.A.Nirmala 60.K.Jayaguru 61.S.Michel 62.T.Ganesan 63.V.Buvaneshwari 64.P.Krishna Poongothai

5/40 65.T.Livingta 66.R.Umagowri 67.A.Raju 68.B.Raveendiran 69.P.G.Saranbabu 70.V.Anitha 71.D.Radha 72.S.Deepa 73.P.Kokila 74.S.Malarselvi 75.K.Sekar 76.P.Anbarasu 77.M.Kanagasabapathy 78.M.Sathiyakeerthi 79.A.Kasinathan 80.H.Mohamedumar 81.M.Pragadeeswaran 82.C.Thaiyalnayaki 83.K.Concelia

6/40 84.C.Vijayalakshmi 85.S.Amutha Rajeswari 86.N.Venkatalakshmi 87.N.Somasundaram 88.R.Jayabarathi 89.B.Jaya Sutha 90.G.Kalpana 91.V.Kanagaraj 92.T.Murugesan 93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu 94.B.Mariarosalin 95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj 97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani 99.S.Nishanthi 100.M.Boomah Devi 101.P.Senthilkumar 102.K.Arunnehru

7/40 103.V.Kalaiselvan 104.C.Maruthuraj 105.S.Sivagami 106.K.Shabina Banu 107.T.Geetha 108.A.Saravanakumar 109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj 110.S.Silambuselvi 111.D.Chitra 112.S.Sathiya 113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai 115.P.Rajini 116.P.Srividhya 117.G.Umamaheswari 118.M.Kalaiyarasi 119.U.Arulanandham 120.M.Muthukrishnan 121.M.Shanbagavalli

8/40 122.S.Uthirapathi 123.N.Purusothaman 124.G.Raja 125.R.Gowri 126.L.Balaji 127.P.Rajkumar 128.K.Maheswari 129.K.Sudhamathi 130.P.Kavitha 131.R.Tamilarasi 132.P.Prema 133.R.Manikandan 134.L .Rajalakshmi 135.T.Anbazhagan 136.R.Vetriselvan 137.A.Ezhilarasi 138.P.Ramalakshmi 139.V.Navaneeth 140.K.Gowri

9/40 141.R.Mahesh 142.S.Jareen Banu 143.K.Kannan 144.N.Prema 145.S.Sumathi (Deceased) 146.R.Sangeetha 147.A.Gnana Rosy 148.K.Menaka 149.R.Selvakumar 150.G.Lakshmi 151.M.Arulmozhi 152.R.Saranraj 153.S.Suseela 154.R.Govindarasu 155.V.Malarvizhi 156.N.Jayanthi 157.M.Kalpana 158.T.Nithya 159.P.Sumathi

10/40 160.A.Pushparaju 161.S.Syed Yusuff 162.K.R.Ganesan 163.R.Selvamani 164.P.Thangamani 165.P.Rajkumar 166.P.Tharani 167.K.Jegatheeswari 168.N.Senthilkumar 169.B.Meenasaranya 170.A.Usha 171.G.Sangareswari 172.N.Veerasamy 173.S.Kamalasridevi 174.R.TamilSelvi 175.B.Esakkimuthu 176.D.M.Rama 177.R.Shrijayanthi 178.K.Kalaivani

11/40 179.T.Ganga Parameswari 180.M.Brammasakthi 181.S.Amuthalakshmi 182.L.Raveendra Kumar 183.P.Kalaichelvi 184.M.Krishna Moorthy 185.R.Selvaraj 186.S.Jothi 187.S.Rathivinaisha 188.P.Kuppuraj 189.K.Senthil Sevugapandian 190.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department.

Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009 191.The Commissioner of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.

192.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), (Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.

Respondent(s)

12/40 PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order made in W.P.No.9011 of 2022 dated 21.03.2025 by reviewing that the post of typists is also eligible for inclusion within 2% set apart for the post of BT Assistants. For Applicant(s):

Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy for Ms.S.Suneetha For Respondent(s):

Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar for R1 to R189 Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader for R190 to R192 Rev.A.No.171 of 2025 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department.

Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009 2.The Commissioner of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.

13/40 3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), (Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. L.S.Churchil Chinnaiah 2.M.Selvarajan 3.P.Nagalakshmi 4.R.Megala 5.M.Kavitha 6.E.Shakunthala 7.S.Saraswathi 8.D.Vijayalakshmi 9.R.Hemavathi 10.P.Venkatesan 11.R.Saravanan 12.V.Thenmozhi 13.K.Ramar 14.J.Seyed Mohudoom Beevi

14/40 15.K.Sutha 16.V.Kohilavani 17.B.Dhandapani 18.V.Murugalakshmi 19.P.Mariammal Paramasivan 20.G.Gnanaprathayini 21.S.Sumathi 22.M.Nalini 23.P.Mageshwari 24.R.Padmavathy 25.S.Priyanka 26.R.Aruna 27.K.Parimala 28.N.Thambuswamy 29.G.Mathavaraj 30.J P.Ravi 31.S.Preetha 32.K.Sulochana 33.M.Thangadurai

15/40 34.A.Amutha 35.R.Anbu 36.M.Janaki 37.N.Usharani 38.R K.Merlin Rajini 39.N.Deepa 40.K C.Janani 41.K.Muppidathi @ Selvarani 42.S.Uma Maheswari 43.M.Ganesan 44.K.Gayathri 45.M.Subramani 46.G.Rosita Rexalin 47.V.Kavitha 48.T.Anandhi 49.J.Indumathi 50.A.Rameshkumar 51.G.Vinoth Kumar 52.N.Vijayamala

16/40 53.M.Subramani 54.J.R.Srinivasan 55.A.Muthuameena 56.K.Udhayakumar 57.S.Soundararajan 58.P S.Thyagarajan 59.A.Nirmala 60.K.Jayaguru 61.S.Michel 62.T.Ganesan 63.V.Buvaneshwari 64.P.Krishna Poongothai 65.T.Livingta 66.R.Umagowri 67.A.Raju 68.B.Raveendiran 69.P.G.Saranbabu 70.V.Anitha 71.D.Radha

17/40 72.S.Deepa 73.P.Kokila 74.S.Malarselvi 75.K.Sekar 76.P.Anbarasu 77.M.Kanagasabapathy 78.M.Sathiyakeerthi 79.A.Kasinathan 80.H.Mohamedumar 81.M.Pragadeeswaran 82.C.Thaiyalnayaki 83.K.Concelia 84.C.Vijayalakshmi 85.S.Amutha Rajeswari 86.N.Venkatalakshmi 87.N.Somasundaram 88.R.Jayabarathi 89.B.Jaya Sutha 90.G.Kalpana

18/40 91.V.Kanagaraj 92.T.Murugesan 93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu 94.B.Mariarosalin 95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj 97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani 99.S.Nishanthi 100.M.Boomah Devi 101.P.Senthilkumar 102.K.Arunnehru 103.V.Kalaiselvan 104.C.Maruthuraj 105.S.Sivagami 106.K.Shabina Banu 107.T.Geetha 108.A.Saravanakumar 109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj

19/40 110.S.Silambuselvi 111.D.Chitra 112.S.Sathiya 113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai 115.P.Rajini 116.A.MohamedAppas 117.P.Srividhya 118.G.Umamaheswari 119.M.Kalaiyarasi 120.U.Arulanandham 121.M.Muthukrishnan 122.M.Shanbagavalli 123.S.Uthirapathi 124.N.Purusothaman 125.G.Raja 126.R.Gowri 127.L.Balaji 128.P.Rajkumar

20/40 129.K.Maheswari 130.K.Sudhamathi 131.P.Kavitha 132.R.Tamilarasi 133.P.Prema 134.R.Manikandan 135.A.Bharathi Lakshmi 136.J.Dhanalakshmi 137.L .Rajalakshmi 138.T.Anbazhagan 139.R.Vetriselvan 140.A.Ezhilarasi 141.P.Ramalakshmi 142.V.Navaneeth 143.K.Gowri 143.R.Mahesh 145.S.Jareen Banu 146.K.Kannan 147.N.Prema

21/40 148.S.Sumathi 149.R.Sangeetha 150.A.Gnana Rosy 151.K.Menaka 152.R.Selvakumar 153.G.Lakshmi 154.M.Arulmozhi 155.R.Saranraj 156.S.Suseela 157.R.Govindarasu 158.V.Malarvizhi 159.N.Jayanthi 160.M.Kalpana 161.T.Nithya 162.P.Sumathi 163.A.Pushparaju 164.S.Syed Yusuff 165.K.R.Ganesan 166.R.Selvamani

22/40 167.P.Thangamani 168.P.Rajkumar 169.P.Tharani 170.K.Jegatheeswari 171.N.Senthilkumar 172.B.Meenasaranya 173.A.Usha 174.G.Sangareswari 175.N.Veerasamy 176.S.Kamalasridevi 177.R.TamilSelvi 178.B.Esakkimuthu 179.D.M.Rama 180.R.Shrijayanthi 181.K.Kalaivani 182.T.Ganga Parameswari 183.M.Brammasakthi 184.S.Amuthalakshmi 185.L.Raveendra Kumar

23/40 186.P.Kalaichelvi 187.M.Krishna Moorthy 188.R.Selvaraj 189.S.Jothi 190.S.Rathivinaisha 191.P.Kuppuraj 192.K.Senthil Sevugapandian Respondent(s) PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022.

For Applicant(s):

Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For Respondent(s):

Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar

24/40 Rev.A.No.172 of 2025

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

Review Applicant(s) Vs

1. M Thangadurai 2.M Ramya 3.K Maheswari 4.K Umadevi 5.The Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. by its Chairman 4th Floor, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the common order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.32621 of 2024.

25/40 For Applicant(s):

Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For Respondent(s):

Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar for R1 to R4 Mr.R.Neelagandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan Standing Counsel for R5 COMMON ORDER The issue involved in all these Review Applications are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2.Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Education Department, to review the order passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022. Review Application No.171 of 2025 pertains to the post of P.G. Assistant and Review Application No.172 of 2025 pertains to the post of B.T. Assistant.

26/40 3.Review Application No.170 of 2025 pertains to the extension of the benefit conferred by the order passed by this Court in the writ petition to Typists on par with Junior Assistants.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5.The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 submitted that certain vital facts were not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petitions were heard. It was submitted that insofar as B.T. Assistants are concerned, they come under Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 19.07.2007, which was issued based on a statement made by the Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the House and it was submitted that this Government Order was not passed in

27/40 exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General also pointed out G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020, which was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in this Government Order, it was made clear that the amendments will come into force with effect from 19.07.2007. This Government Order provided that 2% out of 50% of vacancies would be earmarked for promotion by recruitment by transfer and it will be filled up from among those staffs who are Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants who are qualified in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and working in School Education Department. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, was also issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Special Rules came into force only from the date of its publication and it was made clear that the recruitment by transfer will be made in the ratio of 50%:48%:2%.

6.By relying upon the above Government Orders, it was submitted that for the period between 2014-2015 up to 2016-2017, 32 vacancies would be

28/40 eligible by calculating 2% out of 50% vacancies. It was further submitted that there was no promotion or recruitment during 2017-2018 up to 2022-2023 and therefore, there is no need to grant any promotion by recruitment by transfer for this period. For the period from 2023-2024, there will be 119 vacancies and these will be filled up in the ratio of 2% out of total 100%. Thus, totally 151 persons will be eligible from the Ministerial Service and whereas, it was wrongly informed to this Court that 517 persons will be eligible under the 2% quota for promotion by recruitment by transfer. 7.Apart from the above, the learned Advocate General also pointed out that year wise seniority cannot be adopted, since there are many seniors who have been awaiting for a very long time for their promotion and if year wise seniority is done, many of the juniors who fall under the 2% quota will be placed above their seniors.

8.The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Typists are not covered under any of the Government Orders and they will not be eligible under

29/40 the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 21.05.2025, has been issued by the School Education Department under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and hence, persons claiming under the 2% quota will have to satisfy the qualification prescribed.

9.Insofar as Review Application No.171 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.04.1981, which provided that the post of P.G. Assistants will be filled up in the proportion of 50:50 for recruitment by transfer and by promotion. Subsequently, G.O.(4D).No.21, dated 02.11.2011, came to be issued and this brought the 2% quota out of 50%. However, this Government Order was not passed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In spite of the same, for the period from 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, 71 persons were appointed under the 2% quota. There was no promotion for the period from 2014-2015 to 2021-2022. Ultimately, G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 30.01.2020, was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and this provided for the amendment to the education

30/40 service and it provided for 2% quota. This amendment came into effect only from 30.01.2020 and was not given any retrospective effect. Therefore, the 2% quota can be implemented only from 01.01.2021. For the period from 20142015 up to 2021-2022, 164 vacancies arose under the 2% quota and 128 persons were benefited and 36 persons alone were left out. Since the relevant Government Order came into the effect only from 01.01.2021, the 36 persons who were left out cannot be considered unless they claim for parity with the 71 persons who were already been appointed under the 2% quota pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011. Starting from the panel drawn from 01.01.2021, their will be no difficulty in implementing the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 09.12.2024, has been issued and it provides for the qualification to come under the 2% quota.

10.The learned Advocate General further submitted that like in the case of B.T. Assistant, even here, year wise panel for granting promotion will affect many seniors and therefore, bulk appointment will be made under 2% quota based on the seniority.

31/40 11.The learned Advocate General concluded his arguments by submitting that the effect of allowing these review applications will only result in an alteration of numbers and the crux of the order will remain intact. It was further submitted that clarity is required with respect to the direction given by this Court for year wise panel.

12.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that the post of Typist has always been considered on par with Junior Assistant. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 14.02.1995. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 19.07.2007, which did not speak about the post of Typists, and contended that it has to be read along with the G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011, which made it clear that Junior Assistants also includes Typists. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education, dated 22.11.2010, where it was mentioned that Typist will also be entitled for being appointed as B.T. Assistant.

32/40 13.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the review applicants in the guise of arguing the review applications are attempting to reargue the entire case. It was further contended that all the grounds that were raised in the review applications were considered by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and there is no error apparent on the face of the order. Therefore, it was contended that there are absolutely no merits in the review applications. It was further argued that the review applications have been filed only as against one writ petition and whereas, the order pertained to a batch of writ petitions. Therefore, since no review application has been filed insofar as those writ petitions are concerned, the order passed in these review applications will not have any bearing against the petitioners in those writ petitions. 14.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record.

33/40 15.This Court must first remind itself of the scope of a review application. The Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, provides for the scope of the review under Rule 29. It is made clear that no petition for review will be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. It was also made clear that a review application is not maintainable as against an order which has already been passed in the previous review application. 16.It will also be relevant to take note of the judgement of the Apex Court in Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others reported in MANU/SC/1564/2019. This judgement dealt with the entire length and breadth of the scope of a review petition. It was held that a review application will be maintainable only when there is discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The other ground on which the review application is maintainable is where there is a

34/40 mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Insofar as entertaining an application on the ground of sufficient reasons, it was held that the said term will mean a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in the Rules. It was also made clear that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and it is by no means an appeal in disguise. Even insofar as an error apparent on the face of the record, it should not be an error which has to be fished out or searched for. It was made abundantly clear that repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot be reopened in a review application.

17.Insofar as all the Government Orders which were relied upon by the learned Advocate General seeking for the review of the order passed in a writ petition, it is seen that all those Government Orders were duly taken into consideration while passing the common judgements in the writ petitions. In fact, all the grounds that have been raised in these review applications were raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and only after

35/40 considering the same, the common judgement was passed in the writ petitions. It is quite unfortunate that the respondents who had earlier given instructions to the learned Advocate General based on which the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General and which has also been recorded by this Court while disposing of the writ petitions, now want the learned Advocate General to come up with a different theory on the scope of the very same Government Orders which were considered at the time of disposing the writ petitions. The respondents, in fact, are putting the learned Advocate General in a tight spot, since the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General in the writ petitions only based on the specific instructions received from the respondents. In fact, at Paragraph No.

22 of the judgement, this Court appreciated the fair submissions made by the learned Advocate General which sufficiently took care of the grievances expressed by the writ petitioners. 18.In view of the above, this Court cannot once again go into the scope of the very same Government Orders and come up with a different finding and the same will be beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.

36/40 have been filed to virtually reopen those arguments/stand taken in the counter affidavit, which were considered by this Court when the common judgement was passed. Hence, the attempt made by the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 is nothing but an appeal in disguise where they are wanting this Court to rehear the matter. In short, the respondents are now giving a different view on the scope of the Government Orders. Just because another view is possible, that does not become a ground for reviewing the judgement passed in the writ petitions.

19.The judgement was passed in a batch of writ petitions and whereas, the review application has been filed by the Government only in relation to one writ petition viz., W.P.No.9011 of 2022. This would mean that the orders that will equally apply to other writ petitions have not been questioned. By filing one review application, the respondents cannot seek for review of the order passed in a batch of writ petitions even though, a common judgement was passed in those writ petitions. This is yet another ground as to why Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025, are liable to be dismissed by this Court.

37/40 20.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the fact that Typists was considered on par with Junior Assistants will not help the review applicants, since the relevant Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, only deals with Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants and consciously, the post of Typists has been omitted. It must also be kept in mind that those Government Orders were issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unless and otherwise, those Government Orders are specifically questioned on the ground that the post of Typists was considered on par with post of Junior Assistants for a long period of time and in spite of the same, the post of Typists has not been included in the 2% quota for B.T. Assistants, the same cannot be decided in a review application. Hence, liberty is granted to the review applicants to question the relevant Government Orders, if so advised, and to proceed further in accordance with law.

38/40 21.In the result, all the review applications stand dismissed. No Costs. 15-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

39/40 To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department.

Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009.

2.The Commissioner of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), (Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006. 4.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, D.P.I.Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

40/40 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr Review Application Nos.170, 171 and 172 of 2025 15-07-2025