2026:MHC:901 REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 REV.APPL No. 29 of 2026 V.Vairamani ..Applicant Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009. 2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-600025 3. The Principal, Murugappa Polytechnic college, Sathiyamoorthy Nagar (SM Nagar) Chennai -600 062 4. The Branch Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A and E), Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai -18. ..Respondent(s) REV.APPL No. 32 of 2026 V.Balakrishnan ..Applicant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 8 Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009. 2. The Director of Technical Education Directorate of Technical Education, No. 53, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai-25. 3. The Principal P.A.C.Ramasamy Raja polytechnic College, KR NagarPost, PACR Salai, Rajapalayam, Virudhungar District 626 108. ..Respondent(s) REV.APPL No. 30 of 2026 K.Venkataramani ..Applicant Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai- 600 009 2. The Director of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai 600 025. 3. The Principal P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Polytechnic College, K.R. Nagar Post, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 8 PACR Salai, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District 626 108 4. The Branch Officer, Office of the Account General (A and E) Tamil Nadu, No. 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. ..Respondent(s) REV.APPL No. 28 of 2026 K.Sundararaj ..Applicant Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai- 600 009 2. The Director of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai 600 025. 3. The Principal P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Polytechnic College, K.R. Nagar Post, PACR Salai, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District 626 108 ..Respondent(s) REV.APPL No. 31 of 2026 A.M.Jambunathan ..Applicant Vs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 8 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai- 600 009 2. The Director of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai 600 025 3. The Principal P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Polytechnic College, K.R. Nagar Post, PACR Salai, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District 626 108 ..Respondent(s) REV.APPL No. 29 of 2026 Prayer: To review the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.A.No.1846 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 and to pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. REV.APPL No. 32 of 2026 Prayer: To review the orders passed by this Honble Court in WA No. 695 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 and to pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. REV.APPL No. 30 of 2026 Prayer: To reveiw the order passed by this Honble Court in WA.No.1946 of 2025 dated 16-07-2025. REV.APPL No. 28 of 2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 8 Prayer: To review the order passed by this Honble Court in WA.No.1777 of 2025 dated 16-07-2025. REV.APPL No. 31 of 2026 Prayer: To review the order passed by this Honble Court in WA.No.1769 of 2025 dated 16-07-2025. For Applicants: Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel For Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sathish Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 C O M M O N O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present Review Applications have been instituted to review the order of this Court dated 16.07.2025 passed in a batch of Intra Court Appeals instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Review Applicants would mainly contend that this Court has not appreciated the fact that Review Applicants have already been upgraded as UGHOD in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.12000-18300 well before the issue of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 25.05.2010, which is 'vested rights / accrued rights. Therefore, this Court ought to have directed the Official respondents to confer benefits of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 8 Rs.9000/- by allowing re-option. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that notifications of the year 2010, 2012, 2015 issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the consequential Government Orders have not been taken into consideration. If all those years are taken into consideration, the result in the order would be otherwise. 3. Re-adjudication of merits in a review proceedings is impermissible. The scope of Review Application cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of grounds on merits. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be expanded for considering the grounds for appeal and review applications have to be confined only to the extent of ascertaining the error apparent on record if any traceable. 4. In the present case, arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Applicants would be apparent that an attempt has been made to adjudicate the merits with reference to Notifications issued by AICTE and the consequential Government Orders. If at all the said findings are not satisfactory to the parties, it is for them to prefer appeal before the higher forum. Instead grounds of appeal cannot be converted as a ground to review the order, which is impermissible. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 8 5. Perusal of grounds raised in the Review Applications would show that an attempt has been made to re-adjudicate the scope of Government Orders and the effect of notifications, etc. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Review Applicants have not established any error apparent warranting interference in exercise of powers of review. Consequently, all the Review Applications are dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 02-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR To: 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009. 2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-600025 3. The Branch Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A and E), Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai -18. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 8 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND K.SURENDER J. AR REV.APPL Nos.28 to 32 of 2026 02-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis