[Judgment of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This review petition is to review the Judgment, dated 25.04.2017, made in W.A.(MD) No.138 of 2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Degree Certificate of M.A. (Tamil) was re-issued as early as on 27.02.2014 by the Tamil University, Tanjore and the letter from the Registrar, dated 05.01.2015, was only a reminder by the Tamil University. Unfortunately, the weightage is given to the subsequent reminder letter instead of the reissued certificate. Further, it is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, one post was kept vacant and this was noticed by the Writ Court in its order, dated 05.01.2015.
4. Before we consider the submissions of the learned counsel, we wish to point out that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise. In a review petition, the petitioner cannot re-argue the case as originally projected . In our considered view, we have taken note of the submissions while hearing the appeal and assigned the following reasons as to why the directions issued by the Writ Court are not sustainable. For better appreciation, Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the Judgment are extracted hereunder: "6. It may be true that as of now, the impediment which was put against the respondent is not in existence, because of the letter of the Tamil University, dated 05.01.2015. But, nevertheless, this letter has been obtained by the respondent during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, this can be at best help to the respondent to participate in the subsequent selection, if he is otherwise qualified. The respondent cannot be accommodated in the post of P.G.Assistant in Tamil, since the pattern of selection has been revised by the third appellant / Teachers Recruitment Board. Even assuming the respondent had participated in the selection process under the new pattern, that by itself cannot confer upon him any vested right to get appointment now, as the selection in which he had participated was for the year 2010-2011.
7. Therefore, the writ appeal is partly allowed and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant in Tamil based on the certificate issued by the Tamil University is set aside and liberty is granted to the respondent to apply for the next selection to the said post, if he is otherwise qualified to apply for the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
5. The petitioner is not able to point out any error in the Judgment, which is sought to be reviewed. Thus, we are of the view that no ground is made out to review the Judgment and the review petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the review petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs...