Madrasorders High Court · 2025

4/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202546.G.Rosita Rexalin47.V.Kavitha48.T.Anandhi49.J.Indumathi50.A.Rameshkumar51.G.Vinoth Kumar52.N.Vijayamala53.M.Subramani54.J.R.Srinivasan55.A.Muthuameena56.K.Udhayakumar57.S.Soundararajan58.P S.Thyagarajan59.A.Nirmala60.K.Jayaguru61.S.Michel62.T.Ganesan63.V.Buvaneshwari64.P.Krishna Poongothai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202565.T.Livingta66.R.Umagowri67.A.Raju68.B.Raveendiran69.P.G.Saranbabu70.V.Anitha71.D.Radha72.S.Deepa73.P.Kokila74.S.Malarselvi75.K.Sekar76.P.Anbarasu77.M.Kanagasabapathy78.M.Sathiyakeerthi79.A.Kasinathan80.H.Mohamedumar81.M.Pragadeeswaran82.C.Thaiyalnayaki83.K.Concelia https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202584.C.Vijayalakshmi85.S.Amutha Rajeswari86.N.Venkatalakshmi87.N.Somasundaram88.R.Jayabarathi89.B.Jaya Sutha90.G.Kalpana91.V.Kanagaraj92.T.Murugesan93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu94.B.Mariarosalin95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani99.S.Nishanthi100.M.Boomah Devi101.P.Senthilkumar102.K.Arunnehru https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025103.V.Kalaiselvan104.C.Maruthuraj105.S.Sivagami106.K.Shabina Banu107.T.Geetha108.A.Saravanakumar109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj110.S.Silambuselvi111.D.Chitra112.S.Sathiya113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai115.P.Rajini116.P.Srividhya117.G.Umamaheswari118.M.Kalaiyarasi119.U.Arulanandham 120.M.Muthukrishnan 121.M.Shanbagavalli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025122.S.Uthirapathi123.N.Purusothaman124.G.Raja125.R.Gowri126.L.Balaji127.P.Rajkumar128.K.Maheswari129.K.Sudhamathi130.P.Kavitha131.R.Tamilarasi132.P.Prema133.R.Manikandan134.L .Rajalakshmi135.T.Anbazhagan136.R.Vetriselvan137.A.Ezhilarasi138.P.Ramalakshmi139.V.Navaneeth140.K.Gowri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025141.R.Mahesh142.S.Jareen Banu143.K.Kannan144.N.Prema145.S.Sumathi (Deceased)146.R.Sangeetha147.A.Gnana Rosy148.K.Menaka149.R.Selvakumar150.G.Lakshmi151.M.Arulmozhi152.R.Saranraj153.S.Suseela154.R.Govindarasu155.V.Malarvizhi156.N.Jayanthi157.M.Kalpana158.T.Nithya159.P.Sumathi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025160.A.Pushparaju161.S.Syed Yusuff162.K.R.Ganesan163.R.Selvamani164.P.Thangamani165.P.Rajkumar166.P.Tharani167.K.Jegatheeswari168.N.Senthilkumar169.B.Meenasaranya170.A.Usha171.G.Sangareswari172.N.Veerasamy173.S.Kamalasridevi174.R.TamilSelvi175.B.Esakkimuthu176.D.M.Rama177.R.Shrijayanthi178.K.Kalaivani https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025179.T.Ganga Parameswari180.M.Brammasakthi181.S.Amuthalakshmi182.L.Raveendra Kumar183.P.Kalaichelvi184.M.Krishna Moorthy185.R.Selvaraj186.S.Jothi187.S.Rathivinaisha188.P.Kuppuraj189.K.Senthil Sevugapandian190.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009191.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.192.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order made in W.P.No.9011 of 2022 dated 21.03.2025 by reviewing that the post of typists is also eligible for inclusion within 2% set apart for the post of BT Assistants.For Applicant(s):Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy forMs.S.SuneethaFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwarfor R1 to R189Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government Pleaderfor R190 to R192Rev.A.No.171 of 20251.The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 0092.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 20253.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.Petitioner(s)Vs1. L.S.Churchil Chinnaiah2.M.Selvarajan3.P.Nagalakshmi4.R.Megala5.M.Kavitha6.E.Shakunthala7.S.Saraswathi8.D.Vijayalakshmi9.R.Hemavathi10.P.Venkatesan11.R.Saravanan12.V.Thenmozhi13.K.Ramar14.J.Seyed Mohudoom Beevi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202515.K.Sutha16.V.Kohilavani17.B.Dhandapani18.V.Murugalakshmi19.P.Mariammal Paramasivan20.G.Gnanaprathayini21.S.Sumathi22.M.Nalini23.P.Mageshwari24.R.Padmavathy25.S.Priyanka26.R.Aruna27.K.Parimala28.N.Thambuswamy29.G.Mathavaraj30.J P.Ravi31.S.Preetha32.K.Sulochana33.M.Thangadurai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202534.A.Amutha35.R.Anbu36.M.Janaki37.N.Usharani38.R K.Merlin Rajini39.N.Deepa40.K C.Janani41.K.Muppidathi @ Selvarani42.S.Uma Maheswari43.M.Ganesan44.K.Gayathri45.M.Subramani46.G.Rosita Rexalin47.V.Kavitha48.T.Anandhi49.J.Indumathi50.A.Rameshkumar51.G.Vinoth Kumar52.N.Vijayamala https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202553.M.Subramani54.J.R.Srinivasan55.A.Muthuameena56.K.Udhayakumar57.S.Soundararajan58.P S.Thyagarajan59.A.Nirmala60.K.Jayaguru61.S.Michel62.T.Ganesan63.V.Buvaneshwari64.P.Krishna Poongothai65.T.Livingta66.R.Umagowri67.A.Raju68.B.Raveendiran69.P.G.Saranbabu70.V.Anitha71.D.Radha https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202572.S.Deepa73.P.Kokila74.S.Malarselvi75.K.Sekar76.P.Anbarasu77.M.Kanagasabapathy78.M.Sathiyakeerthi79.A.Kasinathan80.H.Mohamedumar81.M.Pragadeeswaran82.C.Thaiyalnayaki83.K.Concelia84.C.Vijayalakshmi85.S.Amutha Rajeswari86.N.Venkatalakshmi87.N.Somasundaram88.R.Jayabarathi89.B.Jaya Sutha90.G.Kalpana https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202591.V.Kanagaraj92.T.Murugesan93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu94.B.Mariarosalin95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani99.S.Nishanthi100.M.Boomah Devi101.P.Senthilkumar102.K.Arunnehru103.V.Kalaiselvan104.C.Maruthuraj105.S.Sivagami106.K.Shabina Banu107.T.Geetha108.A.Saravanakumar109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025110.S.Silambuselvi111.D.Chitra112.S.Sathiya113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai115.P.Rajini116.A.MohamedAppas117.P.Srividhya118.G.Umamaheswari119.M.Kalaiyarasi120.U.Arulanandham 121.M.Muthukrishnan 122.M.Shanbagavalli 123.S.Uthirapathi124.N.Purusothaman125.G.Raja126.R.Gowri127.L.Balaji128.P.Rajkumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025129.K.Maheswari130.K.Sudhamathi131.P.Kavitha132.R.Tamilarasi133.P.Prema134.R.Manikandan135.A.Bharathi Lakshmi136.J.Dhanalakshmi137.L .Rajalakshmi138.T.Anbazhagan139.R.Vetriselvan140.A.Ezhilarasi141.P.Ramalakshmi142.V.Navaneeth143.K.Gowri143.R.Mahesh145.S.Jareen Banu146.K.Kannan147.N.Prema https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025148.S.Sumathi149.R.Sangeetha150.A.Gnana Rosy151.K.Menaka152.R.Selvakumar153.G.Lakshmi154.M.Arulmozhi155.R.Saranraj156.S.Suseela157.R.Govindarasu158.V.Malarvizhi159.N.Jayanthi160.M.Kalpana161.T.Nithya162.P.Sumathi163.A.Pushparaju164.S.Syed Yusuff165.K.R.Ganesan166.R.Selvamani https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025167.P.Thangamani168.P.Rajkumar169.P.Tharani170.K.Jegatheeswari171.N.Senthilkumar172.B.Meenasaranya173.A.Usha174.G.Sangareswari175.N.Veerasamy176.S.Kamalasridevi177.R.TamilSelvi178.B.Esakkimuthu179.D.M.Rama180.R.Shrijayanthi181.K.Kalaivani182.T.Ganga Parameswari183.M.Brammasakthi184.S.Amuthalakshmi185.L.Raveendra Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025186.P.Kalaichelvi187.M.Krishna Moorthy188.R.Selvaraj189.S.Jothi190.S.Rathivinaisha191.P.Kuppuraj192.K.Senthil SevugapandianRespondent(s)PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022.For Applicant(s):Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025Rev.A.No.172 of 20251. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,School Education Department,Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of School EducationDPI Campus, College Road,Chennai-600 006.Review Applicant(s)Vs1. M Thangadurai2.M Ramya3.K Maheswari4.K Umadevi5.The Teachers Recruitment BoardRep. by its Chairman4th Floor, D.P.I. Campus,College Road, Chennai-600 006.Respondent(s)PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the common order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.32621 of 2024. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025For Applicant(s):Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwarfor R1 to R4Mr.R.NeelagandanAdditional Advocate Generalassisted byMr.C.KathiravanStanding Counsel for R5COMMON ORDERThe issue involved in all these Review Applications are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.2.Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Education Department, to review the order passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022. Review Application No.171 of 2025 pertains to the post of P.G. Assistant and Review Application No.172 of 2025 pertains to the post of B.T. Assistant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 20253.Review Application No.170 of 2025 pertains to the extension of the benefit conferred by the order passed by this Court in the writ petition to Typists on par with Junior Assistants.4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.5.The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 submitted that certain vital facts were not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petitions were heard. It was submitted that insofar as B.T. Assistants are concerned, they come under Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 19.07.2007, which was issued based on a statement made by the Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the House and it was submitted that this Government Order was not passed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General also pointed out G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020, which was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in this Government Order, it was made clear that the amendments will come into force with effect from 19.07.2007. This Government Order provided that 2% out of 50% of vacancies would be earmarked for promotion by recruitment by transfer and it will be filled up from among those staffs who are Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants who are qualified in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and working in School Education Department. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, was also issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Special Rules came into force only from the date of its publication and it was made clear that the recruitment by transfer will be made in the ratio of 50%:48%:2%.6.By relying upon the above Government Orders, it was submitted that for the period between 2014-2015 up to 2016-2017, 32 vacancies would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025eligible by calculating 2% out of 50% vacancies. It was further submitted that there was no promotion or recruitment during 2017-2018 up to 2022-2023 and therefore, there is no need to grant any promotion by recruitment by transfer for this period. For the period from 2023-2024, there will be 119 vacancies and these will be filled up in the ratio of 2% out of total 100%. Thus, totally 151 persons will be eligible from the Ministerial Service and whereas, it was wrongly informed to this Court that 517 persons will be eligible under the 2% quota for promotion by recruitment by transfer.7.Apart from the above, the learned Advocate General also pointed out that year wise seniority cannot be adopted, since there are many seniors who have been awaiting for a very long time for their promotion and if year wise seniority is done, many of the juniors who fall under the 2% quota will be placed above their seniors.8.The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Typists are not covered under any of the Government Orders and they will not be eligible under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 21.05.2025, has been issued by the School Education Department under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and hence, persons claiming under the 2% quota will have to satisfy the qualification prescribed.9.Insofar as Review Application No.171 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.04.1981, which provided that the post of P.G. Assistants will be filled up in the proportion of 50:50 for recruitment by transfer and by promotion. Subsequently, G.O.(4D).No.21, dated 02.11.2011, came to be issued and this brought the 2% quota out of 50%. However, this Government Order was not passed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In spite of the same, for the period from 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, 71 persons were appointed under the 2% quota. There was no promotion for the period from 2014-2015 to 2021-2022. Ultimately, G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 30.01.2020, was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and this provided for the amendment to the education https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025service and it provided for 2% quota. This amendment came into effect only from 30.01.2020 and was not given any retrospective effect. Therefore, the 2% quota can be implemented only from 01.01.2021. For the period from 2014-2015 up to 2021-2022, 164 vacancies arose under the 2% quota and 128 persons were benefited and 36 persons alone were left out. Since the relevant Government Order came into the effect only from 01.01.2021, the 36 persons who were left out cannot be considered unless they claim for parity with the 71 persons who were already been appointed under the 2% quota pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011. Starting from the panel drawn from 01.01.2021, their will be no difficulty in implementing the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 09.12.2024, has been issued and it provides for the qualification to come under the 2% quota.10.The learned Advocate General further submitted that like in the case of B.T. Assistant, even here, year wise panel for granting promotion will affect many seniors and therefore, bulk appointment will be made under 2% quota based on the seniority. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202511.The learned Advocate General concluded his arguments by submitting that the effect of allowing these review applications will only result in an alteration of numbers and the crux of the order will remain intact. It was further submitted that clarity is required with respect to the direction given by this Court for year wise panel.12.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that the post of Typist has always been considered on par with Junior Assistant. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 14.02.1995. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 19.07.2007, which did not speak about the post of Typists, and contended that it has to be read along with the G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011, which made it clear that Junior Assistants also includes Typists. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education, dated 22.11.2010, where it was mentioned that Typist will also be entitled for being appointed as B.T. Assistant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202513.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the review applicants in the guise of arguing the review applications are attempting to reargue the entire case. It was further contended that all the grounds that were raised in the review applications were considered by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and there is no error apparent on the face of the order. Therefore, it was contended that there are absolutely no merits in the review applications. It was further argued that the review applications have been filed only as against one writ petition and whereas, the order pertained to a batch of writ petitions. Therefore, since no review application has been filed insofar as those writ petitions are concerned, the order passed in these review applications will not have any bearing against the petitioners in those writ petitions.14.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202515.This Court must first remind itself of the scope of a review application. The Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, provides for the scope of the review under Rule 29. It is made clear that no petition for review will be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. It was also made clear that a review application is not maintainable as against an order which has already been passed in the previous review application.16.It will also be relevant to take note of the judgement of the Apex Court in Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others reported in MANU/SC/1564/2019. This judgement dealt with the entire length and breadth of the scope of a review petition. It was held that a review application will be maintainable only when there is discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The other ground on which the review application is maintainable is where there is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Insofar as entertaining an application on the ground of sufficient reasons, it was held that the said term will mean a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in the Rules. It was also made clear that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and it is by no means an appeal in disguise. Even insofar as an error apparent on the face of the record, it should not be an error which has to be fished out or searched for. It was made abundantly clear that repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot be reopened in a review application.17.Insofar as all the Government Orders which were relied upon by the learned Advocate General seeking for the review of the order passed in a writ petition, it is seen that all those Government Orders were duly taken into consideration while passing the common judgements in the writ petitions. In fact, all the grounds that have been raised in these review applications were raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and only after https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025considering the same, the common judgement was passed in the writ petitions. It is quite unfortunate that the respondents who had earlier given instructions to the learned Advocate General based on which the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General and which has also been recorded by this Court while disposing of the writ petitions, now want the learned Advocate General to come up with a different theory on the scope of the very same Government Orders which were considered at the time of disposing the writ petitions. The respondents, in fact, are putting the learned Advocate General in a tight spot, since the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General in the writ petitions only based on the specific instructions received from the respondents. In fact, at Paragraph No.22 of the judgement, this Court appreciated the fair submissions made by the learned Advocate General which sufficiently took care of the grievances expressed by the writ petitioners.18.In view of the above, this Court cannot once again go into the scope of the very same Government Orders and come up with a different finding and the same will be beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. These review applications https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025have been filed to virtually reopen those arguments/stand taken in the counter affidavit, which were considered by this Court when the common judgement was passed. Hence, the attempt made by the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 is nothing but an appeal in disguise where they are wanting this Court to rehear the matter. In short, the respondents are now giving a different view on the scope of the Government Orders. Just because another view is possible, that does not become a ground for reviewing the judgement passed in the writ petitions.19.The judgement was passed in a batch of writ petitions and whereas, the review application has been filed by the Government only in relation to one writ petition viz., W.P.No.9011 of 2022. This would mean that the orders that will equally apply to other writ petitions have not been questioned. By filing one review application, the respondents cannot seek for review of the order passed in a batch of writ petitions even though, a common judgement was passed in those writ petitions. This is yet another ground as to why Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025, are liable to be dismissed by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202520.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the fact that Typists was considered on par with Junior Assistants will not help the review applicants, since the relevant Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, only deals with Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants and consciously, the post of Typists has been omitted. It must also be kept in mind that those Government Orders were issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unless and otherwise, those Government Orders are specifically questioned on the ground that the post of Typists was considered on par with post of Junior Assistants for a long period of time and in spite of the same, the post of Typists has not been included in the 2% quota for B.T. Assistants, the same cannot be decided in a review application. Hence, liberty is granted to the review applicants to question the relevant Government Orders, if so advised, and to proceed further in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202521.In the result, all the review applications stand dismissed. No Costs.15-07-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/Nossr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025To1.The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009.2.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.4.The Chairman,Teachers Recruitment Board,4th Floor, D.P.I.Campus,College Road, Chennai-600 006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025N.ANAND VENKATESH J.ssrReview Application Nos.170, 171 and 172 of 202515-07-2025

4/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202546.G.Rosita Rexalin47.V.Kavitha48.T.Anandhi49.J.Indumathi50.A.Rameshkumar51.G.Vinoth Kumar52.N.Vijayamala53.M.Subramani54.J.R.Srinivasan55.A.Muthuameena56.K.Udhayakumar57.S.Soundararajan58.P S.Thyagarajan59.A.Nirmala60.K.Jayaguru61.S.Michel62.T.Ganesan63.V.Buvaneshwari64.P.Krishna Poongothai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202565.T.Livingta66.R.Umagowri67.A.Raju68.B.Raveendiran69.P.G.Saranbabu70.V.Anitha71.D.Radha72.S.Deepa73.P.Kokila74.S.Malarselvi75.K.Sekar76.P.Anbarasu77.M.Kanagasabapathy78.M.Sathiyakeerthi79.A.Kasinathan80.H.Mohamedumar81.M.Pragadeeswaran82.C.Thaiyalnayaki83.K.Concelia https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202584.C.Vijayalakshmi85.S.Amutha Rajeswari86.N.Venkatalakshmi87.N.Somasundaram88.R.Jayabarathi89.B.Jaya Sutha90.G.Kalpana91.V.Kanagaraj92.T.Murugesan93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu94.B.Mariarosalin95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani99.S.Nishanthi100.M.Boomah Devi101.P.Senthilkumar102.K.Arunnehru https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025103.V.Kalaiselvan104.C.Maruthuraj105.S.Sivagami106.K.Shabina Banu107.T.Geetha108.A.Saravanakumar109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj110.S.Silambuselvi111.D.Chitra112.S.Sathiya113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai115.P.Rajini116.P.Srividhya117.G.Umamaheswari118.M.Kalaiyarasi119.U.Arulanandham 120.M.Muthukrishnan 121.M.Shanbagavalli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025122.S.Uthirapathi123.N.Purusothaman124.G.Raja125.R.Gowri126.L.Balaji127.P.Rajkumar128.K.Maheswari129.K.Sudhamathi130.P.Kavitha131.R.Tamilarasi132.P.Prema133.R.Manikandan134.L .Rajalakshmi135.T.Anbazhagan136.R.Vetriselvan137.A.Ezhilarasi138.P.Ramalakshmi139.V.Navaneeth140.K.Gowri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025141.R.Mahesh142.S.Jareen Banu143.K.Kannan144.N.Prema145.S.Sumathi (Deceased)146.R.Sangeetha147.A.Gnana Rosy148.K.Menaka149.R.Selvakumar150.G.Lakshmi151.M.Arulmozhi152.R.Saranraj153.S.Suseela154.R.Govindarasu155.V.Malarvizhi156.N.Jayanthi157.M.Kalpana158.T.Nithya159.P.Sumathi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025160.A.Pushparaju161.S.Syed Yusuff162.K.R.Ganesan163.R.Selvamani164.P.Thangamani165.P.Rajkumar166.P.Tharani167.K.Jegatheeswari168.N.Senthilkumar169.B.Meenasaranya170.A.Usha171.G.Sangareswari172.N.Veerasamy173.S.Kamalasridevi174.R.TamilSelvi175.B.Esakkimuthu176.D.M.Rama177.R.Shrijayanthi178.K.Kalaivani https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025179.T.Ganga Parameswari180.M.Brammasakthi181.S.Amuthalakshmi182.L.Raveendra Kumar183.P.Kalaichelvi184.M.Krishna Moorthy185.R.Selvaraj186.S.Jothi187.S.Rathivinaisha188.P.Kuppuraj189.K.Senthil Sevugapandian190.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009191.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.192.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order made in W.P.No.9011 of 2022 dated 21.03.2025 by reviewing that the post of typists is also eligible for inclusion within 2% set apart for the post of BT Assistants.For Applicant(s):Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy forMs.S.SuneethaFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwarfor R1 to R189Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government Pleaderfor R190 to R192Rev.A.No.171 of 20251.The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 0092.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 20253.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.Petitioner(s)Vs1. L.S.Churchil Chinnaiah2.M.Selvarajan3.P.Nagalakshmi4.R.Megala5.M.Kavitha6.E.Shakunthala7.S.Saraswathi8.D.Vijayalakshmi9.R.Hemavathi10.P.Venkatesan11.R.Saravanan12.V.Thenmozhi13.K.Ramar14.J.Seyed Mohudoom Beevi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202515.K.Sutha16.V.Kohilavani17.B.Dhandapani18.V.Murugalakshmi19.P.Mariammal Paramasivan20.G.Gnanaprathayini21.S.Sumathi22.M.Nalini23.P.Mageshwari24.R.Padmavathy25.S.Priyanka26.R.Aruna27.K.Parimala28.N.Thambuswamy29.G.Mathavaraj30.J P.Ravi31.S.Preetha32.K.Sulochana33.M.Thangadurai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202534.A.Amutha35.R.Anbu36.M.Janaki37.N.Usharani38.R K.Merlin Rajini39.N.Deepa40.K C.Janani41.K.Muppidathi @ Selvarani42.S.Uma Maheswari43.M.Ganesan44.K.Gayathri45.M.Subramani46.G.Rosita Rexalin47.V.Kavitha48.T.Anandhi49.J.Indumathi50.A.Rameshkumar51.G.Vinoth Kumar52.N.Vijayamala https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202553.M.Subramani54.J.R.Srinivasan55.A.Muthuameena56.K.Udhayakumar57.S.Soundararajan58.P S.Thyagarajan59.A.Nirmala60.K.Jayaguru61.S.Michel62.T.Ganesan63.V.Buvaneshwari64.P.Krishna Poongothai65.T.Livingta66.R.Umagowri67.A.Raju68.B.Raveendiran69.P.G.Saranbabu70.V.Anitha71.D.Radha https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202572.S.Deepa73.P.Kokila74.S.Malarselvi75.K.Sekar76.P.Anbarasu77.M.Kanagasabapathy78.M.Sathiyakeerthi79.A.Kasinathan80.H.Mohamedumar81.M.Pragadeeswaran82.C.Thaiyalnayaki83.K.Concelia84.C.Vijayalakshmi85.S.Amutha Rajeswari86.N.Venkatalakshmi87.N.Somasundaram88.R.Jayabarathi89.B.Jaya Sutha90.G.Kalpana https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202591.V.Kanagaraj92.T.Murugesan93.C S.Thirunavukkarasu94.B.Mariarosalin95.M.Karthika 96.D.Jeyaraj97.U.Marsiha begum 98.S.Barani99.S.Nishanthi100.M.Boomah Devi101.P.Senthilkumar102.K.Arunnehru103.V.Kalaiselvan104.C.Maruthuraj105.S.Sivagami106.K.Shabina Banu107.T.Geetha108.A.Saravanakumar109.J.Sebastin Anbu Raj https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025110.S.Silambuselvi111.D.Chitra112.S.Sathiya113.S.Balamurugan 114.C.Thambidurai115.P.Rajini116.A.MohamedAppas117.P.Srividhya118.G.Umamaheswari119.M.Kalaiyarasi120.U.Arulanandham 121.M.Muthukrishnan 122.M.Shanbagavalli 123.S.Uthirapathi124.N.Purusothaman125.G.Raja126.R.Gowri127.L.Balaji128.P.Rajkumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025129.K.Maheswari130.K.Sudhamathi131.P.Kavitha132.R.Tamilarasi133.P.Prema134.R.Manikandan135.A.Bharathi Lakshmi136.J.Dhanalakshmi137.L .Rajalakshmi138.T.Anbazhagan139.R.Vetriselvan140.A.Ezhilarasi141.P.Ramalakshmi142.V.Navaneeth143.K.Gowri143.R.Mahesh145.S.Jareen Banu146.K.Kannan147.N.Prema https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025148.S.Sumathi149.R.Sangeetha150.A.Gnana Rosy151.K.Menaka152.R.Selvakumar153.G.Lakshmi154.M.Arulmozhi155.R.Saranraj156.S.Suseela157.R.Govindarasu158.V.Malarvizhi159.N.Jayanthi160.M.Kalpana161.T.Nithya162.P.Sumathi163.A.Pushparaju164.S.Syed Yusuff165.K.R.Ganesan166.R.Selvamani https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025167.P.Thangamani168.P.Rajkumar169.P.Tharani170.K.Jegatheeswari171.N.Senthilkumar172.B.Meenasaranya173.A.Usha174.G.Sangareswari175.N.Veerasamy176.S.Kamalasridevi177.R.TamilSelvi178.B.Esakkimuthu179.D.M.Rama180.R.Shrijayanthi181.K.Kalaivani182.T.Ganga Parameswari183.M.Brammasakthi184.S.Amuthalakshmi185.L.Raveendra Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025186.P.Kalaichelvi187.M.Krishna Moorthy188.R.Selvaraj189.S.Jothi190.S.Rathivinaisha191.P.Kuppuraj192.K.Senthil SevugapandianRespondent(s)PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022.For Applicant(s):Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025Rev.A.No.172 of 20251. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,School Education Department,Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of School EducationDPI Campus, College Road,Chennai-600 006.Review Applicant(s)Vs1. M Thangadurai2.M Ramya3.K Maheswari4.K Umadevi5.The Teachers Recruitment BoardRep. by its Chairman4th Floor, D.P.I. Campus,College Road, Chennai-600 006.Respondent(s)PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the petition as against the common order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.32621 of 2024. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025For Applicant(s):Mr.P.S.RamanAdvocate General assisted byMrs.S.Mythreye ChandruSpecial Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwarfor R1 to R4Mr.R.NeelagandanAdditional Advocate Generalassisted byMr.C.KathiravanStanding Counsel for R5COMMON ORDERThe issue involved in all these Review Applications are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.2.Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Education Department, to review the order passed in W.P.No.9011 of 2022. Review Application No.171 of 2025 pertains to the post of P.G. Assistant and Review Application No.172 of 2025 pertains to the post of B.T. Assistant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 20253.Review Application No.170 of 2025 pertains to the extension of the benefit conferred by the order passed by this Court in the writ petition to Typists on par with Junior Assistants.4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.5.The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 submitted that certain vital facts were not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petitions were heard. It was submitted that insofar as B.T. Assistants are concerned, they come under Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 19.07.2007, which was issued based on a statement made by the Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the House and it was submitted that this Government Order was not passed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General also pointed out G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020, which was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in this Government Order, it was made clear that the amendments will come into force with effect from 19.07.2007. This Government Order provided that 2% out of 50% of vacancies would be earmarked for promotion by recruitment by transfer and it will be filled up from among those staffs who are Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants who are qualified in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and working in School Education Department. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, was also issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Special Rules came into force only from the date of its publication and it was made clear that the recruitment by transfer will be made in the ratio of 50%:48%:2%.6.By relying upon the above Government Orders, it was submitted that for the period between 2014-2015 up to 2016-2017, 32 vacancies would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025eligible by calculating 2% out of 50% vacancies. It was further submitted that there was no promotion or recruitment during 2017-2018 up to 2022-2023 and therefore, there is no need to grant any promotion by recruitment by transfer for this period. For the period from 2023-2024, there will be 119 vacancies and these will be filled up in the ratio of 2% out of total 100%. Thus, totally 151 persons will be eligible from the Ministerial Service and whereas, it was wrongly informed to this Court that 517 persons will be eligible under the 2% quota for promotion by recruitment by transfer.7.Apart from the above, the learned Advocate General also pointed out that year wise seniority cannot be adopted, since there are many seniors who have been awaiting for a very long time for their promotion and if year wise seniority is done, many of the juniors who fall under the 2% quota will be placed above their seniors.8.The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Typists are not covered under any of the Government Orders and they will not be eligible under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 21.05.2025, has been issued by the School Education Department under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and hence, persons claiming under the 2% quota will have to satisfy the qualification prescribed.9.Insofar as Review Application No.171 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Advocate General pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.04.1981, which provided that the post of P.G. Assistants will be filled up in the proportion of 50:50 for recruitment by transfer and by promotion. Subsequently, G.O.(4D).No.21, dated 02.11.2011, came to be issued and this brought the 2% quota out of 50%. However, this Government Order was not passed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In spite of the same, for the period from 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, 71 persons were appointed under the 2% quota. There was no promotion for the period from 2014-2015 to 2021-2022. Ultimately, G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 30.01.2020, was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and this provided for the amendment to the education https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025service and it provided for 2% quota. This amendment came into effect only from 30.01.2020 and was not given any retrospective effect. Therefore, the 2% quota can be implemented only from 01.01.2021. For the period from 2014-2015 up to 2021-2022, 164 vacancies arose under the 2% quota and 128 persons were benefited and 36 persons alone were left out. Since the relevant Government Order came into the effect only from 01.01.2021, the 36 persons who were left out cannot be considered unless they claim for parity with the 71 persons who were already been appointed under the 2% quota pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011. Starting from the panel drawn from 01.01.2021, their will be no difficulty in implementing the 2% quota. G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 09.12.2024, has been issued and it provides for the qualification to come under the 2% quota.10.The learned Advocate General further submitted that like in the case of B.T. Assistant, even here, year wise panel for granting promotion will affect many seniors and therefore, bulk appointment will be made under 2% quota based on the seniority. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202511.The learned Advocate General concluded his arguments by submitting that the effect of allowing these review applications will only result in an alteration of numbers and the crux of the order will remain intact. It was further submitted that clarity is required with respect to the direction given by this Court for year wise panel.12.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that the post of Typist has always been considered on par with Junior Assistant. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 14.02.1995. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 19.07.2007, which did not speak about the post of Typists, and contended that it has to be read along with the G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.11.2011, which made it clear that Junior Assistants also includes Typists. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education, dated 22.11.2010, where it was mentioned that Typist will also be entitled for being appointed as B.T. Assistant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202513.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the review applicants in the guise of arguing the review applications are attempting to reargue the entire case. It was further contended that all the grounds that were raised in the review applications were considered by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and there is no error apparent on the face of the order. Therefore, it was contended that there are absolutely no merits in the review applications. It was further argued that the review applications have been filed only as against one writ petition and whereas, the order pertained to a batch of writ petitions. Therefore, since no review application has been filed insofar as those writ petitions are concerned, the order passed in these review applications will not have any bearing against the petitioners in those writ petitions.14.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202515.This Court must first remind itself of the scope of a review application. The Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, provides for the scope of the review under Rule 29. It is made clear that no petition for review will be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. It was also made clear that a review application is not maintainable as against an order which has already been passed in the previous review application.16.It will also be relevant to take note of the judgement of the Apex Court in Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others reported in MANU/SC/1564/2019. This judgement dealt with the entire length and breadth of the scope of a review petition. It was held that a review application will be maintainable only when there is discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The other ground on which the review application is maintainable is where there is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Insofar as entertaining an application on the ground of sufficient reasons, it was held that the said term will mean a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in the Rules. It was also made clear that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and it is by no means an appeal in disguise. Even insofar as an error apparent on the face of the record, it should not be an error which has to be fished out or searched for. It was made abundantly clear that repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot be reopened in a review application.17.Insofar as all the Government Orders which were relied upon by the learned Advocate General seeking for the review of the order passed in a writ petition, it is seen that all those Government Orders were duly taken into consideration while passing the common judgements in the writ petitions. In fact, all the grounds that have been raised in these review applications were raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and only after https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025considering the same, the common judgement was passed in the writ petitions. It is quite unfortunate that the respondents who had earlier given instructions to the learned Advocate General based on which the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General and which has also been recorded by this Court while disposing of the writ petitions, now want the learned Advocate General to come up with a different theory on the scope of the very same Government Orders which were considered at the time of disposing the writ petitions. The respondents, in fact, are putting the learned Advocate General in a tight spot, since the submissions were made by the learned Advocate General in the writ petitions only based on the specific instructions received from the respondents. In fact, at Paragraph No.22 of the judgement, this Court appreciated the fair submissions made by the learned Advocate General which sufficiently took care of the grievances expressed by the writ petitioners.18.In view of the above, this Court cannot once again go into the scope of the very same Government Orders and come up with a different finding and the same will be beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. These review applications https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025have been filed to virtually reopen those arguments/stand taken in the counter affidavit, which were considered by this Court when the common judgement was passed. Hence, the attempt made by the review applicants in Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025 is nothing but an appeal in disguise where they are wanting this Court to rehear the matter. In short, the respondents are now giving a different view on the scope of the Government Orders. Just because another view is possible, that does not become a ground for reviewing the judgement passed in the writ petitions.19.The judgement was passed in a batch of writ petitions and whereas, the review application has been filed by the Government only in relation to one writ petition viz., W.P.No.9011 of 2022. This would mean that the orders that will equally apply to other writ petitions have not been questioned. By filing one review application, the respondents cannot seek for review of the order passed in a batch of writ petitions even though, a common judgement was passed in those writ petitions. This is yet another ground as to why Review Application Nos.171 and 172 of 2025, are liable to be dismissed by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202520.Insofar as Review Application No.170 of 2025 is concerned, the fact that Typists was considered on par with Junior Assistants will not help the review applicants, since the relevant Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 20.01.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 30.01.2020, only deals with Superintendents, Assistants and Junior Assistants and consciously, the post of Typists has been omitted. It must also be kept in mind that those Government Orders were issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, unless and otherwise, those Government Orders are specifically questioned on the ground that the post of Typists was considered on par with post of Junior Assistants for a long period of time and in spite of the same, the post of Typists has not been included in the 2% quota for B.T. Assistants, the same cannot be decided in a review application. Hence, liberty is granted to the review applicants to question the relevant Government Orders, if so advised, and to proceed further in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 202521.In the result, all the review applications stand dismissed. No Costs.15-07-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/Nossr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025To1.The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,School Education Department.Fort St. George. Chennai -600 009.2.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai -600 006.3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),(Higher Secondary) D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai -600 006.4.The Chairman,Teachers Recruitment Board,4th Floor, D.P.I.Campus,College Road, Chennai-600 006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/40Rev.A.Nos.170, 171 & 172 of 2025N.ANAND VENKATESH J.ssrReview Application Nos.170, 171 and 172 of 202515-07-2025