T.G.Subramaniam v. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Review Applications No.201 and 202 of 2023 1.T.G.Subramaniam 2.U.Bagavathy 3.K.Chandra Sekaran 4.R.Elumalai 5.G.Subramani 6.A.M.Palanisamy 7.R.Deenadayalan 8.P.M.Sampath ... Applicants in Rev.Appln.201/2023 K.Jeevanandam ... Applicant in Rev.Appln.202/2023 Vs.

Chennai 600 015 3.The Principal Accountant General 361, Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 4.The District Collector Tiruvallur 5.C.Jayaraman 6.A.T.Chandran 7.K.Perumal 8.R.Jaya ... Respondents in Rev.Appln.201/2023 Chennai 600 015 3.The Principal Accountant General 361, Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 4.The District Collector Vellore ... Respondents in Rev.Appln.202/2023 Common Prayer: Review Applications are filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of

CPC r/w under Section 114 of CPC), praying to review the order dated 12.03.2021 made in W.A.Nos.2374 and 2832 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

For Applicants : Mr.G.Murugendran For Respondents : Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate - R1, 2&4 COMMON ORDER M.S.RAMESH, J.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

In the grounds raised by the Review applicants, a reference has been made to orders passed in similar circumstances, touching upon implementation of G.O.Ms.856, PWD, dated 01.06.1977. This apart, the ground of delay, pointed out in the judgment passed in the Writ Appeals, has also been challenged before us, claiming that in similar cases, the delay has been condoned.

2.It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of entertaining a Review Application is very limited, and the Reviewing Court will be justified in correcting certain errors that are apparent on the face of

record and nothing more. The grounds raised by the applicants, with regard to the benefits obtained by similarly placed candidates under G.O.Ms.No.856, were very much available to the applicants when the Writ Appeals were argued, so also the ground of delay. When that being so, having failed to canvass these grounds before the Coordinate Bench, it would now not be permissible for the applicants to raise the same grounds in view of doctrine of constructive res judicata. 3.We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed in W.A.Nos.2374 and 2832 of 2019. Therefore, both the Review Applications stand dismissed.

[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 27.10.2025 kas Index: Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking

To.

Chennai 600 015 3.The Principal Accountant General 361, Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 4.The District Collector Tiruvallur 5.The District Collector Vellore

M.S.RAMESH, J.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

kas Review Applications No.201 and 202 of 2023 27.10.2025