JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. The moot question that arises for consideration in this reference is whether upon a review petition being entertained in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter being reconsidered and the original order being retained, such an order is amenable to an appeal.

2. The questions referred by a Division Bench order of February 19, 2021 are, however, more elaborate and it is necessary that the incidental aspects on the periphery be also conclusively dealt with at this level. The questions of law referred to this Full Bench are as follows:

"(1) Is the appeal filed against the order of review maintainable sans a challenge to the order passed in the writ petition.

(2) Is the appeal maintainable when the earlier order was passed without going into the merits of the case giving liberty to file a review.

(3) If the appeal is maintainable, what is the scope and ambit, meaning thereby the issue, which is dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition can be gone into or not.

(4) Whether the order passed in the review petition would amount to deemed merger of the order passed in the writ petition.

(5) Is the review maintainable in a case, where the appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge is dismissed and therefore, the order in the writ petition stands. If so, what is the scope of the review petition and appeal.

(6) Is a review of a judgment of the learned Judge akin to a review under the Code of Civil Procedure.

(7) Is a decision rendered in a review on a new issue can be stated to be appealable as against the re-agitation of the same issue.

(8) Whether the issue of principle of res-judicata would apply, when an issue was not considered and decided by the learned single Judge and in which case, the review decided by him would be appealable or not."

3. It is necessary to recount the facts as the law is never discussed in vacuum but always against the backdrop of the facts of the case. In May, 2014, the Tahsildar, Ilayangudi, requested the District Employment Officer to sponsor eligible candidates for the post of Village Assistant for three revenue villages in Ilayangudi Taluk. An interview call letter was addressed to the writ petitioner by the Tahsildar on June 16, 2014. The interview was scheduled to be held on June 23, 2014 and was duly held. By a letter of October 15, 2014 the writ petitioner requested the District Collector to appoint the writ petitioner at Vijayangudi village. Around the same time, one Jaya Lakshmi was appointed as Village Assistant in Aranaiyur village. In November, 2014, the writ petitioner instituted W.P. (MD). No. 19696 of 2014 seeking appointment as Village Assistant in Vijayangudi village. By an order dated March 5, 2018 the writ petition was allowed on three principal grounds: that the writ petitioner was the only eligible candidates for Vijayangudi village; that interview had been conducted on June 23, 2014; and, the post remained vacant as Jaya Lakshmi had been appointed elsewhere. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Ilayangudi was directed to appoint the writ petitioner as Village Assistant in Vijayangudi village.

4. In April, 2018 the official respondents to the writ petition preferred an appeal on the ground that the post had not been filled up since the communal roster had not been followed; and, if the communal roster had to be implemented, the writ petitioner would not be eligible. It was also asserted that there were other eligible candidates called for the interview. Since the grounds urged in appeal were found not to have been canvassed before the Single Bench, the writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to carry a review before the Single Bench as the grounds on which the appeal was preferred had not been disclosed by way of any affidavit prior to the writ petition being allowed.

5. Accordingly, Review Application (MD) No. 75 of 2018 came to be filed in December, 2018. By a judgment and order of January 2