S.Prasanth v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN S.Prasanth ... Petitioner -vs1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board No.807, P.D.V.Sengalvaraya Naicker Maligai Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2.The Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai Kailasapuram Mylapore, Chennai-4 3.The District Superintendent of Police District Superintendent of Police Office Korampallam, Thoothukudi District 4.The Chairman / Member Sub-Committee of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Thoothukudi Board District Superintendent of Police Department Office Thoothukudi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment dated 29.11.2023 made in W.A.(MD) No.1141 of 2022.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents :
Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] This review application has been instituted seeking to review the judgment dated 29.11.2023 made in W.A.(MD) No.1141 of 2022.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner mainly contended that once the candidate is qualified to apply for a post that is enough and the production of proof for the same is a procedural and therefore, on that ground, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected. He produced a photocopy of the SSLC mark statement only for the sake of producing its true copy, for which it took six days time for him and therefore, there was a delay and on that ground, his case was rejected. Such a mistake on the part of the review petitioner is trivial in nature, which needs to be
condoned and consequently, the review petition is to be considered.
3. Re-adjudication of merits in a review petition is impermissible. The grounds for appeal cannot be considered in a review petition. The scope of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be expanded for the purpose of reconsidering the facts or merits, which were already considered by the Court. With reference to the grounds raised, this Court has already considered and made a finding that the review petitioner was called for certificate verification on 21.11.2019 and on that date, the review petitioner did not possess the requisite certificate. The review petitioner was issued with the SSLC mark statement only on 27.11.2019 i.e., six days after the certificate verification and since the said certificate was lost by the review petitioner, the same was not produced before the Selection Committee.
This Court further observed that even on subsequent date, the petitioner had not produced the said document. Pertinently, the review petitioner participated in the subsequent selection process and was unsuccessful. That being the factum, we are of the view that the review petitioner has not made out any error apparent on the face of the records warranting interference of this Court to exercise the power of review.
4. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. However, if the review petitioner is otherwise eligible, he may participate in the future recruitments, if any notified. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 28.07.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No krk To:
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.D.V.Sengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Kailasapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.The District Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent of Police Office, Korampallam, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Chairman / Member, Sub-Committee of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment, Thoothukudi Board, District Superintendent of Police Department Office,
Thoothukudi.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN , J.
krk 28.07.2025