Court stresses review petition's maintainability before relief, directs departmental proceedings completion in 3 months

The Court directed the High Court to first decide on the maintainability of the review petition before proceeding further. The High Court's interim orders were deemed impermissible as they effectively allowed the review petition without a decision on its maintainability. The Court emphasized the importance of determining the review petition's maintainability before granting any relief. The authorities were instructed to complete the departmental proceedings within three months with the respondent's cooperation. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the review application, allowing the appellants to seek variation of the impugned order in a specific writ petition.

---

---

Issues involved: Review of High Court order granting interim relief, maintainability of review petition, validity of interim orders, completion of departmental proceedings.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Review of High Court order granting interim relief
The appellants challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a review application, contending that it was an abuse of the court process. The High Court had granted interim relief allowing the respondent to enjoy benefits of conditional promotion and extra service, which the appellants argued the respondent was not entitled to. The respondent had filed various petitions seeking to restrain the department from reverting his position, and the Court dismissed these petitions. Subsequently, the respondent filed for a review of the judgment to regularize his promotions, which were subject to the outcome of previous appeals. The High Court's interim orders were passed without deciding on the maintainability of the review application, effectively allowing it.

Issue 2: Maintainability of review petition
The High Court had passed interim orders without deciding on the maintainability of the review petition, which the appellants argued was impermissible in law. The Court directed the High Court to first decide on the maintainability of the review petition before proceeding further.

Issue 3: Validity of interim orders
The High Court's interim orders were challenged by the appellants as being effectively equivalent to allowing the review petition without a decision on its maintainability. The Court held that such a course of action was not permissible in law, emphasizing the importance of determining the review petition's maintainability before granting any relief.

Issue 4: Completion of departmental proceedings
The Court directed the authorities to make efforts to complete the departmental proceedings within three months, with the respondent's cooperation. It was emphasized that the respondent must cooperate in the completion of these proceedings.

The appeals were disposed of with the above directions, and it was clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the review application. The appellants were given the option to seek variation of the impugned order in a specific writ petition.

---