M.VENUGOPAL, J.
The Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant Review Application as against the order dated 28.03.2016 in W.A.No.255 of 2015 passed by this Court.
2. Earlier, this Court, in W.A.No.255 of 2015 on 28.03.2016 [filed by the Review Petitioners/Appellants/ Respondents], at paragraphs 16 to 18, had observed the following:
“16.It comes to be known that when W.P.No.41691 of 2006 came up for hearing, the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents therein submitted that subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide its Letter No.267 School Education Department dated 19.10.2000, had modified the category and therefore, nothing survived in the Writ Petition and based on the same, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous one.
17. As far as the present case is concerned, it is to be borne in mind that the rejection of approval of appointment of R.Saravana Babu was not based on the issue pertaining to 'Teachers Eligibility Test', but it was concerned with G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 21.07.2000. In this connection, this court very relevantly points out the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.4346 of 2011 on 09.07.2012 (between E.S.T.Bakthavatchalam V. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others), at paragraph 13, whereby and whereunder, which runs as follows:
“13.Therefore, there appears to have been a confusion with regard to the effective implementation of the Government Order. Moreover, Rule 21 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services stipulates that if suitable women candidates are not available, male candidates can always be appointed to the posts which are earmarked for women. These aspects have not been examined by the respondents.”
18. Be that as it may, in the light of careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court, on going through the impugned order dated 04.07.2014 in W.P.No.25927 of 2012, is of the considered view that the order of the Learned Single Judge, in allowing the Writ Petition and issuing necessary directions, does not suffer from any material irregularities or legal infirmities or patent illegalities in the eye of Law. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails.”
and dismissed the Writ Appeal without costs.
3. Assailing the validity and the correctness of the Judgment dated 28.03.2016 in W.A.No.255 of 2015 passed by this Court, the Learned Additional Advocate General for the Petitioners/Appellants takes a plea that this Court, while passing the Judgment in W.A.No.255 of 2015 dated 28.03.2016 [filed against the order dated 04.07.2014 in W.P.No.25927 of 2012], had not taken into consideration the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011, wherein it was stated that 'Teacher Eligibility Test' is not necessary in the process of making appointment which had taken place prior to 15.11.2011.
4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Additional Advocate General for the Petitioners/Appellants submits that in the case on hand, the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagapattinam had granted permission to fill up the post only on 31.01.2012 which is long after the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011.
5. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants that in the relevant School, already one male Headmaster is available and that the request for appointing R.Saravana Babu as Secondary Grade Teacher cannot be accepted.
6. The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent emphatically projects an argument that if the appointment on behalf of Mr.R.Saravana Babu is approved retrospectively from the date of appointment i.e., 20.02.2012 without basic qualification of the 'Teacher Eligibility Test', then, the Policy of the Government will be allowed to adrift.
7. The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent submits that the order passed by this Court, in directing the Respondent to approve the appointment of the second male Teacher in the Aided School, is contrary to the ratio prescribed in the Government Order.
8. The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent contends that the Government took an interim decision to fill up the Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 2000-2001 by allotting 50% to Women and 50% to General to the Panchayat Union Schools based on the Government Letter (Ms) No.267 dated 19.10.2000 and based on that only posts are filled up. Moreover, the decision was taken only to fill up the posts in the Panchayat Union Schools and the same cannot be applicable to the Government Aided School.
9. In response, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Learned Single Judge, while allowing W.P.No.25927 of 2012, on 04.07.2014, at paragraph 6, had observed the following:
“6.For ready reference, I rely upon the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19473 of 2012 dated 03.08.2012, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has passed the following order:
“7.In similar cases, this Court also allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.3355 of 2010 on 18.11.2010.
Considering the fact that the appointment made by the petitioner is within the permissible ratio, the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher is required to be approved by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is not in dispute that the said Prabhu was appointed by the education committee by way of resolution on 23.02.2012 and he is continuously working. Therefore, his appointment should be approved retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e. on 24.02.2012.”
and further opined that 'the case on hand was similar to that of the case already decided by this Court etc. and setting aside the impugned order in Reference No.O.Mu.2162/A2/2012 dated 11.07.2012 and issued a direction to the 2nd Appellant/2nd Respondent to approve the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu, as Secondary Grade Teacher, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order', which was later affirmed by this Court in W.A.No.255 of 2015 and that they do not suffer from any material irregularities or patent illegalities in the eye of Law.
10. It is to be pointed out that a 'Review' is not to be entertained to substitute view already taken or for fresh decision in a case. In 'Review', a Court of Law cannot rehear the matter 'De novo'. Moreover, 'Rehearing' of every matter under the guise of 'Review Power' is not a matter of course. Apart from the above, the matter that has attained finality cannot be reopened, unless a clear- cut case is made out.
11. It is to be noted that 'Review' cannot be asked for fresh hearing/correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. In short, 'Power of Review' can be exercised for correction of mistakes and not to substitute a view. Furthermore, if a Litigant is aggrieved by any Judgment, which in his understanding/apprecisation, was not correctly decided as per Law or erroneously decided, such an argument may be raised/agitated in an Appeal before the Higher/ Superior Forum, but not in 'Review Petition'.
12. In the upshot of aforestated discussions, this Court, on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case in a cumulative fashion, unhesitatingly comes to an inescapable conclusion that there are no 'apparent errors on the face of record' in the Judgment in W.A.No.255 of 2015 dated 28.03.2016 passed by this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the Review Application is devoid of merits.
13. In fine, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(M.V., J.) (P.D.A., J.) 06.10.2017 Speaking Order Index :Yes Internet :Yes Sgl M.VENUGOPAL, J.
and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Sgl To
1. G.Raghunath, Secretary, Aided Primary School, Thirumeignanam Post, Tharangambadi Taluk, Nagapattinam District.
2. The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras.
Order in Rev.Apln.No.147 of 2017 06.10.2017