Dhanasekran v. The University Of Madras

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2023 THE HONOURABLE MR. S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN REVIEW APPLICATION No.121 OF 2023 in REVIEW APPLICATION No.51 OF 2022 in WRIT APPEAL No.2271 OF 2018 P.Dhanasekaran ... Review Applicant vs.

1. The University of Madras, represented by its Registrar, Chennai 600 005.

2. Dr.S.Bhaskaran, Technical Officer, Madras University Library, Chennai.

3. V.Kalaiappan, Technical Officer, Guindy Campus, University of Madras, Chennai.

4. University Grants Commission, rep. by its Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

... Respondents Page No.1 of 4

Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Court in Review Application No.51 of 2022.

For Review Applicant :

Mr.M.Ganesh For 1st Respondent :

Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents 2 & 3 :

No appearance For 4th Respondent :

Mr.P.R.Gopinathan

ORDER

The Review Applicant viz. P.Dhanasekaran has come with the present Review Application seeking to review the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Court in Review Application No.51 of 2022, which was filed seeking to review the judgment dated 23.12.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.2271 of 2018.

2.

In the case on hand, admittedly, the Review Applicant/Dhanasekaran had the requisite qualification; however, he was not appointed to the post of Assistant Librarian, which is not a promotional post, but, a post which has to be filled up only by way of direct recruitment. For appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian, the Review Applicant has to compete based on the advertisement and get selected to the said post. In the Writ Appeal, this Bench had categorically held that the Review Applicant/Dhanasekaran is not entitled to any relief. Page No.2 of 4

The said decision made by this Bench in the Writ Appeal was upheld in Review Application No.51 of 2022.

3.

For the reason that facts pleaded by the Review Applicant/Dhanasekaran in the present Review Application have not been brought to the attention of this Court either in the Writ Appeal or in Review Application No.51 of 2022, the present Review Application cannot be allowed to stand.

4.

Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads that 'no application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained'. In view of the said provision, a review of an order passed in a Review Application, is not maintainable.

In view of the above, this Review Application is dismissed. (S.V.N.,J.) (A.A.N.,J.) 07.11.2023 Index :

Yes/No Speaking Order :

Yes/No (aeb) Page No.3 of 4

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.

(aeb) 07.11.2023 Page No.4 of 4