Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns five review petitions (REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026) filed by V.Vairamani, V.Balakrishnan, K.Venkataramani, K.Sundararaj, and A.M.Jambunathan against the common judgment dated 12.12.2025 in W.A.Nos. 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 2025. The applicants were lecturers in government polytechnic colleges in Tamil Nadu who had sought selection grade pay. Their writ petitions were dismissed, and the writ appeals were also dismissed by the Division Bench. The review petitions argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The court, after hearing the counsel for the applicants and the respondents, found that the review petitions did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used for re-argument of the case. The court dismissed all five review petitions, noting that the judgment under review was well-reasoned and no ground for review was made out.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - The review petitioners sought review of a judgment dismissing their writ appeals against denial of selection grade pay. The court held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used for re-argument. No such error was found. (Paras 1-8) B) Service Law - Selection Grade Pay - Denial to Polytechnic Lecturers - The applicants, lecturers in government polytechnic colleges, were denied selection grade pay. The writ appeals were dismissed, and the review petitions challenged that dismissal. The court found no ground to review. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitions disclose any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 12.12.2025 in W.A.Nos. 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1316 of 2025.
Final Decision
All five review petitions (REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026) are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of the case
- No error apparent in the judgment under review
- Review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise
