The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 183 of 2024 Rabindra Mishra ….. Petitioner Mr.Durgesh Narayan Rath, Advocate -versus- ..... Opp.Parties State of Odisha & others Mr. Debasis Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 05.02.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This review petition has been filed by the petitioner Rabindra Mishra seeking to review the order dated
Legal Reasoning
09.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench this Court in W.A. No. 1748 of 2023. It appears that the writ petitioner Rabindra Mishra had filed W.P.(C) No. 8341 of 2022, inter alia, with a prayer to quash the Order No. 7237 dated 22.06.2016 passed by the District Education Officer and for a direction to the opposite parties to release/grant/allow Trained Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f. 09.03.1983 in favour of the petitioner i.e. the date on which the petitioner acquired his B.Ed. qualification and extend all such service benefits as Page 1 of 6 due and admissible to such post within a reasonable time. The said writ petition was disposed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.06.2023 observing as follows : “5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner at length. Taking into account the submissions made that the Petitioner after passing of the impugned order has moved the authority seeking framing of necessary rules for grant of T.G. Scale of pay, the Petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application with regard to the claim made before the Government-Opposite Party No.1 regarding framing of rules for grant of TG Scale of pay in his favour. 6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition so filed against the impugned order after six years of passing of the same. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the liberty as indicated.” Challenging the said order, the petitioner moved the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1748 of 2023 and the Division Bench also dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 09.07.2024 observing as follows: “5. After having perused the materials on record and considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant had not questioned the correctness of the said order dated 22.06.2016, in 2017 when he had filed the original application before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. For the first time in W.P.(C) NO. 8341 of 2022, the appellant challenged the said order dated 22.06.2016. Page 2 of 6 6. Merely because liberty was granted by this Court to withdraw the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2023 of 2017 to file fresh writ petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a fresh cause of action to challenge the order dated 22.06.2016. 7. We accordingly do not find any merit in this Appeal, which is rejected.” Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a specific direction in the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 8341 of 2022 that the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application before the authority seeking for framing of necessary Rules for Trained Graduate scale of pay with regard to the claim made before the Government-Opposite Party No.1 and since the writ appeal has been dismissed, in case any application is moved by the petitioner before opposite party no1, he may not get any relief. In the case of Kamlesh Verma -Vrs.- Mayawati and Ors. reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 320, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing number of decisions on scope of review, laid down its conclusions, which read as follows:- “Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence Page 3 of 6 which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki : AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius : AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. : (2013) 8 SCC 337. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should Page 4 of 6 not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma -Vrs.- Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of the High Courts' power to review an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution referring to an earlier decision in Shivdeo Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 1909 and observed as follows:- "3. ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra), there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also Page 5 of 6 be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as in the writ appeal no contrary order has been passed to the observation which has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 of the order dated 30.06.2023. Accordingly, the review petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) (Savitri Ratho) Judge PKSahoo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 07-Feb-2025 15:42:27 Page 6 of 6