E. Murali v. The Commissioner
2026:MHC:1052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1. E. Murali
2. G.Muniratnam IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, THIS REV.APPL.75 OF 2022 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN, VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 16/10/2023 MADE IN CMP.NO.5996 OF 2023 IN REV.APPL.75/2022 (RMDJ AND JSNPJ) ..Applicants/Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai- 3.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (GAP) Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai- 3.
3. K.Magesh
4. B.Muruga Balaji
5. E.Nirmala
6. G.Pradeepe Kumar
7. R.Rajasekaran
8. S.Padhmanabhan
9. K.Santhakumari 10.C.Vasantha 11.G.Balasubramaniam 12.B.Thirunavukarasu 13.S.Vallavan 14.A.Mohan 15.A.Pughazhendi ..Respondent(s)
Prayer: To review the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in WA.No. 844 of 2013 in WP.No. 726 of 2008 in so far as the Petitioners are concerned and thus render justice.
For Applicants:
Mrs.C.Uma *****
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present Review Application has been filed to review the order of this Court dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.A.No.844 of 2013. This Review Application in respect of the 2nd applicant was already dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 16.10.2023
2. Learned counsel for the Review Applicants would mainly contend that the applicants passed requisite Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Licence Inspector and the said ground has not been considered by this Court. However, the petitioner has admitted the fact that crucial date for preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Licence Inspector was 2008 and promotion was granted to other eligible candidates in the year 2009. Since applicants were not found qualified on the crucial date, which is to be taken into consideration for preparation of panel for promotion, the case of the applicants was not
considered. However, these aspects were not considered by this Court on merits.
3. Re-adjudication of merits in a review proceedings is impermissible. The scope of Review Application cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of grounds on merits. Even non consideration of certain grounds raised on merits would not provide scope for maintaining review application and only in the event of error apparent, Court may entertain review application and therefore, this Court does not find any error apparent, warranting exercise of powers of review jurisdiction.
Consequently, the present Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 11-03-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order AR
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND K.SURENDER, J.
AR To:
1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai- 3.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (GAP) Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai- 3.
11-03-2026