Madras High Court
REV.APLW/3/2026 of D.PARKAVI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 7 September 2026
REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 1799 OF 2026
D.Parkavi
W/o.Sundharsanam, Residing At No.23, Guru Sithananda Street, Senthamarai Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 003.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Union Of India
Rep By The Secretary, Government Of
Puducherry, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, (personnel Wing), Puducherry-605 001.
2. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, Chennai-02.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : To review the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in WP No. 16258 of 2024 and dispose of the writ petition on merits , particularly on the issue of the petitioners entitlement to age relaxation, and direct the respondents to consider the petitioners candidature for appointment to the post of LDC/ Store Keeper Grade III based on her marks (48.75) in view of the reduced cut off and the operation of the waiting list.
REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Order of the Court was made by V.Lakshminarayanan J.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal had not gone into the merits of the case, and had found the petitioner ineligible as she did not secure the qualifying cut-off marks to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk. This order came to be confirmed by this Court. Hence Mr.Thiruneelakandan is on review before us.
2. He urges that the Supreme Court in "High Court of Delhi -vs- Devina Sharma (2022) 2 SCR 513 had upheld the relaxation of age and the same position had been followed in W.P.(C) No.90 of 2023 (Sachin and Others -vs- Central Reserve Police Force and Another) dated 20.01.2023. Hence, he seeks the said judgments to be made applicable to the petitioner and the order be reviewed.
3. At the outset, we have to point out that review is not an appeal in disguise. Secondly, the power to grant relaxation is a decision which has to be taken by the Executive. In exercise of the powers of judicial review, this Court cannot grant relaxation. If we were to venture to do so, then we would be stepping into the zone exclusively reserved for the Executive to decide.
REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026
4. A perusal of the judgment in "High Court of Delhi -vs- Devina Sharma (2022) 2 SCR 513 shows that it was a one time measure on account of COVID-19. In this case, from 2012 onwards the Pondicherry Government had not proceeded for recruitment. Hence, factually the said judgment is distinguishable from the present case. In any event, if the petitioner has grievance, his remedy is only by way of an appeal and not by way of a review. There is no error apparent on record and hence, the Review Application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST To
1. The Secretary, Government Of Puducherry, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, (personnel Wing), Puducherry-605 001.
2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-02.
REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J. KST REV.APLW No. 3 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 1799 OF 2026 07-09-2026