The judgment emphasized the limitations of review applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice in the context of appointment disputes.

Heard both sides. The review application is filed by the original petitioner in W.P.No.14290 of 2006 which arose out of O.A.No.3161 of 1993. The said O.A. was transferred from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as a writ petition.

2. The writ petition was dismissed by an order, dated 14. 2009. The fourth respondent had challenged the petitioners appointment by filing an appeal to the second respondent (the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti). The said appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Tahsildar was cancelled by an order, dated 11. 1993. Though the petitioner preferred a revision application before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, the same was dismissed by him by an order, dated 5. 1993. The authorities found the petitioner was not a resident of Thayaneri, Hamlet of Melakottai village.

3. The petitioner moved the Tribunal with the original application and obtained an interim order. Though reply was filed as early as July, 1993, the matter was not taken up for final hearing. It is under these circumstances, the matter came to this court. This Court upheld the orders of authorities and refused to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the authorities.

4. The petitioner had filed the present review application along with a miscellaneous petition for interim stay.

5. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The review application is not maintainable if it raises a new ground as has been done by the petitioner. In the present circumstances, two grounds were raised. One was that the petitioner had worked for more than 17 years and therefore, he is entitled to continue. Secondly, the residential qualification cannot be taken as a ground for rejection, since such prescription has been disapproved and may be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. First of all, these contentions were never urged when the writ petition was heard. Even otherwise, so long as the rule is not under challenge, the petitioner cannot raise the issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1420 (Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India and Others) and 2002 (6) SCC 562 (Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others). It is for the purpose of contending that a residential qualification cannot be pressed into service to show preference. Those two cases are not apt for considering such issue as those contentions were never urged earlier.

7. Similarly, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.M. Premkumari Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Others reported in 2009 (2) Supreme 271, to contend that if the petitioner was to seek for an employment at present, it may cause grave hardship to the petitioner. Even that cannot be taken note of, since the petitioner has moved the court for a relief. He has to stand or fall by the decision taken by the Court in accordance with law.

8. In fact, the only apt decision in this regard is the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram reported in (2009) 3 SCC 439. In that case, filling up of post of "Lambadar" which is similar to that of the petitioner in the State of Punjab came to be considered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after discussing the nature of the post, laid down parameters of judicial review of an appointment such persons by the authorities. The following passages found in paragraphs 20, 21, 26 to 28 of from the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:

"20. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is basically concerned with the correctness of the decision-making process and not the merit of the decision. It has not been found by the High Court that the Collector in expressing his opinion as regards comparative merit of the a