S.Janathipathi v. State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA in Rev.Aplc(MD)SR No.73442 of 2025 S.Janathipathi ... Review Petitioner/Appellant -Vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6.
3.S.Balan 4.S.Sangeetha ... Respondents No.1to4/ Respondents No.1 to 4 1/5
PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.15816 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the present petition to review the judgment dated 20.02.2025 made in W.A(MD)No.1225 of 2019 on the file of this Court. PRAYER in Rev.Aplc(md)SR No.73442 of 2025: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of C.P.C., against the order passed by this Court in W.A(MD)No.1225 of 2019 dated 20.02.2025.
For Petitioner : M/s.J.R.Anne Abinaya For R1 : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R.POORNIMA , J.
The review applicant has come to the Court to prefer review petition with the delay of 71 days.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.
3.The case related to recruitment through Teachers Recruitment Board, wherein the petitioner has canvassed that under MBC quota for Political Science, she is eligible person and she should have been 2/5
selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board. However, on perusing the records, we find that the existing vacancy candidate, who had secured more mark than the petitioner herein, were accommodated and therefore, her writ petition is not sustainable. However, not satisfied with their reasoning, the present application for review has been filed with the delay of 71 days.
4.The learned counsel strenuously re-argued the case to impress upon us that backlog vacancy not properly calculated by the board and the person, who has secured more mark than the MBC category, should have been accommodated in the general category due to her high score. But not being done by the recruitment board, which has deprived her in the employment.
5.This Court finds this argument was considered in the writ petition and negatived by us and there cannot be a review of the same. Further, the reason stated for condoning the delay of 71 days also found to be not sufficient. The condonation of delay in filing the review petition will lead to reopening of the case pertaining to the recruitment advertisement dated 09.05.2013, ie., 12 years ago. For that reason also, 3/5
the petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6.In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous application stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Review Application is also rejected at SR stage. No costs.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.] 10.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Chennai-09.
4/5
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R.POORNIMA , J.
Ns in Rev.Aplc(MD)SR No.73442 of 2025 10.12.2025 5/5