Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK RVWPET No.18 of 2025 (Arising out of Judgment dated 26.11.2024 rendered in W.A. No.440 of 2024 directed against Judgment dated 24.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.19506 of 2022) *** Krushna Chandra Panda Aged about 58 years Son of Gangadhar Panda At/P.O.: Gopinathpur Sasan District: Kendrapara Presently continuing as Assistant (Trained Graduate) Teacher of Ranihat High School, Cuttack At/P.O./District: Cuttack. … Review Petitioner. (Respondent in the Writ Appeal) -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha Represented through Secretary to Government in School and Mass Education Department At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. Director of Secondary Education At: Heads of Department Building Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. 3. District Education Officer At/P.O./District: Cuttack. … Opposite parties. (Appellants in the Writ Appeal) RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 1 of 27 Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 16.05.2025 MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— J UDGMENT Review of Judgment dated 26.11.2024 rendered in the writ appeal bearing W.A. No.440 of 2024 is sought for by the review-petitioner (arrayed as the opposite party in the writ appeal) under Chapter VIII, Rule 23 of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. Facts as stated by the review-petitioner: 2. The grievance of the review petitioner as emanate from the review petition is that the Review Petitioner (referred to as “RP”, for convenience), appointed as Lower Subordinate Education Service (for short, RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 2 of 27 “LSES”) Teacher on 24.10.1986 in the district of Nuapada, on completion of three years of service with B.Ed. qualification acquired in the year 1999, claimed himself to be eligible for promotion to the Junior Subordinate Education Service (for short, “JSES”) in terms of the provisions of Rule 10A of the Odisha Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, 1972 (for short “Rules, 1972”). 2.1. The Review Petitioner was promoted to JSES Cadre in the year 2005. Based on decisions in connection with certain other employees as similar benefit was not extended to the RP, a case was pursued before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.87(C) of 2014, which came to be disposed of on 14.09.2015 taking note of order passed in O.A. Nos.1673(C) of 1993 and 1804 of 1998 with a direction to the opposite parties to extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of the applicants in O.A. No. 1673(C) of 1993 and 1804 of 1998. Said order passed by the Tribunal on 14.09.2015 was assailed by the State in W.P.(C) No.22983 of 2016, but vide Order dated 29.03.2017 this Court did not show indulgence to interfere with the order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal and disposed of the matter with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision and pass a reasoned order. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 3 of 27 2.2. Claiming to be similarly situated with that of other employees in O.A. No. 1673(C) of 1993 and 1804 of 1998, the RP claimed for promotion retrospectively being eligible in the year of vacancy. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected by vide Order dated 18.09.2017. 2.3. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.19506 of 2022 vide Judgment dated 24.01.2024 directed to extend the benefit of retrospective promotion to the rank of JSES basing on year-wise vacancies as was available in the light of the benefits extended in favour of the similarly situated teachers. 2.4. Intra-Court Appeal was preferred by the functionaries of the Government of Odisha, registered as W.A. No.440 of 2024, which came to be disposed of by Judgment dated 26.11.2024. From the “Synopsis” vide Appendix „A‟ enclosed to the writ appeal, it is surfaced that the appellants were aggrieved by non- consideration of stand taken in the counter affidavit. 2.5. In the writ appeal, the following orders were passed on different dates: “1. Order dated 06.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 4 of 27
Legal Reasoning
2. As requested by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, list this matter on 13.05.2024. 2. Order dated 13.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The hearing concludes. Judgment is reserved. 3. Order dated 29.10.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The present matter has been listed for certain clarification from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on the point as to whether there is any rule in the name of Rule-10(a)(b) of the Rules of the Orissa Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, 1972 in the statute book. 3. For the said clarification, let the matter be listed under the same heading on 05.11.2024. 4. Order dated 05.11.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has agreed that there is a typographical error in the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein, learned RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 5 of 27 there is reference to Rule-10(a)(b) of the Orissa Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, he states that in fact, the Rule 10(A) and 10(B) of the said Rules deal with grant of promotion. 3. The position having been clarified, list this matter for Judgment on 26.11.2024.” 2.6. A copy of note of submission dated 05.11.2024 filed by the present RP in the Writ Appeal vide Annexure-5 to the Review Petition, indicates that the claim of the RP for retrospective promotion was on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2002 (State of Orissa and others Vrs. Gangadhar Sabar), disposed of by Judgment dated 10.08.2017, stemming on Rule 10A and Rule 10B read with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972. It is also emanating from the said written note of submission that the RP referred to Maharaj Krishna Bhatta Vrs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, to fortify his contention that since similarly placed teachers have been extended retrospective promotion, the RP should not have been denied of such benefit. 2.7. On 26.11.2024, Judgment in the Writ Appeal has been pronounced in the open Court. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 6 of 27 2.8. In the said Judgment in Writ Appeal, this Court having recorded relevant facts, made the following observations and framed questions at paragraphs 3 and 14: the that “3. However, it was never the case of the respondent that any person junior to him had been granted the promotion ignoring his case. It is an admitted respondent was given position promotion to the rank of Junior SES Cadre (TGT) w.e.f. 05.10.2005, which he had accepted and had joined the promotional post without any protest. More than eight years thereafter, the respondent approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in 2014 by filing OA No.87(C) of 2014 claiming retrospective promotion under Rule 10A and 10B of 1972 Rules which were repealed by (Method of Odisha Subordinate Education Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993 („1993 Rules‟, in short). The respondent’s promotion w.e.f. 05.10.2005 was under the 1993 Rules. *** 14. After having noticed the pleadings and the documents brought on record in support of such pleadings, coupled with the submissions which have been advanced at following questions have cropped up for consideration in the present intra-court appeal: the bar, (i) Whether the respondent could rightfully establish his claim for promotion under 1972 RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 7 of 27 Rules based on his engagement on ad hoc basis on 24.10.1986? It is noteworthy that the respondent has not disclosed the mode of his initial recruitment leading to his engagement on ad hoc basis on 24.10.1986. The respondent has also not brought on record his engagement letter. In support of his claim that his date of entry in the Government Service was 24.10.1986, he has brought on record a document appears to be a part of the service book brought on record by way of Annexure-1. (ii) Whether the respondent was eligible for consideration for his promotion under the Rules of 1972 after completion of three years from the date of his engagement on ad hoc basis, since he was working on ad hoc basis till the date of regularization of his service on 17.09.1998? (iii) Whether the respondent claim retrospective promotion under the Rules of 1972 by way of right, in the facts and circumstances? can (iv) Whether the respondent has been able to make out a case, based on the pleadings on record in the writ proceedings, of parity on the ground that similarly situated persons were granted retrospective promotion?” 2.9. At paragraph-18 of the Judgment, taking cognizance of the provisions contained in Rule 10A of the Rules, Page 8 of 27 RVWPET No.18 of 2025 1972 dealing with eligibility criteria and Rule 10B thereof with respect to process of selection amongst the persons belonging to LSES and also Rules 3 and 4, found that, “19. We have found no material based on the pleadings on record that the respondent (RP, herein) was ever in the Cadre of LSES till repeal of the 1972 Rules in 19931 based on which he could claim, by way of right, his selection to junior grade in accordance with the Rules.” 2.10. The Judgments in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2008) 9 SCC 24, State of Karnataka Vrs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, as relied on by the learned counsel for the RP were referred in the Judgment rendered in writ appeal. In ultimate, this Court has observed as follows: “26. As has been noted above, in case of the respondent, he has been given promotion w.e.f. 05.10.2005 under the 1993 Rules. Nine years thereafter, he approached the Tribunal claiming his promotion under the 1972 1 Rule 32 of the Odisha Subordinate Education (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993, reads as follows: “32. Repeal and Savings.— The Odisha Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, issued, 1972 are hereby repealed; provided appointment made, action taken or things done under the Rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been issued, made, taken or done under these Rules.” that any order RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 9 of 27 Rules, which was already repealed. Learned Additional Government Advocate has rightly relied on the Supreme Court‟s decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626, wherein it has been laid down that a party cannot claim benefit under the repealed Rules. Further, the Supreme Court, in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) has clearly held that where right is not available, a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the rights does not exist. Paragraph 39 of the said decision lays down the law in following terms: „39. It was lastly submitted that concerning other persons, the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid have been released under the 1994 Order as such on the ground of parity this Court should not interfere. No doubt, there had been a divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. Be that as it may, in our opinion, there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In case the person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the right does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed.‟ 27. Situated thus, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2024. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 10 of 27 the Principal Secretary circumstances of the present case.” in the facts and 2.11. Against the said Judgment, the instant review being preferred, the matter was listed on 08.05.2025 and the following order was passed: “This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Hearing is concluded. 4. Judgment/Order is reserved” 3. What was essentially weighed while rendering the Judgment in writ appeal is this, that: i. ii. There was no disclosure regarding initial recruitment leading to engagement of RP on ad hoc basis on 24.10.1986; There was no material to demonstrate that RP was in the Cadre of Lower Subordinate Education Service as on 24.10.1986; iii. The Odisha Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, 1972 was repealed by the Odisha Subordinate Education (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993; RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 11 of 27 iv. The RP ineligible under the statutory Rules should not be granted benefit; v. Claim of retrospective promotion by the RP under the Rules, 1972 after its repeal does not enure to his benefit; vi. It was never the case of the RP that any person junior to him had been granted the promotion ignoring his case; vii. The promotion granted to the RP with effect from 05.10.2005 was under the provisions the Rules, 1993. 3.1. Therefore, insisting to reconsider the argument advanced before the Division Bench during course of hearing of Writ Appeal based on parity of treatment with reference to certain decisions rendered in respect of other teachers claiming to be similarly situated, the is impermissible. The counsel for the RP having not put forth on record new material or pointed out the error apparent on the face of the record and explaining the delay in pursuing the cause seeking retrospective promotion cannot possibly be considered by way of review. Reconsideration of same argument and re-look at the documents already considered in the Judgment rendered in Writ Appeal is not permissible. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 12 of 27 3.2. This Court is not oblivious of the following dicta of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Meera Bhanja Vrs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, wherein it was held that: “8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vrs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: „It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the 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 be exercised on any analogous ground. But, Page 13 of 27 RVWPET No.18 of 2025 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 power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.‟ ***” 3.3. Bare reading of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1993 makes it abundantly clear that Rules, 1972 have been repealed and the said provision says “any order issued, appointment made, action taken or things done” under Rules, 1972 “shall be deemed to have been issued, made, taken or done” under Rules, 1993. Therefore, being conscious of such a provision, this Court has delivered the Judgment in writ appeal holding that the retrospective promotion claimed under repealed Rules cannot have legitimate effect. Mere reiterating in the review petition that similarly situated employees having been granted the relief, the RP is entitled to the same cannot be extended inasmuch as there is lack of documents as discussed above. 4. With the aforesaid bedrock of factual scenario, glance at the Review Petition leads to depict that the RP sought to revisit the Judgment in the Writ Appeal by undertaking fresh hearing of the matter, which is in the considered opinion of this Court is not permissible under law. Having failed to apprise this Court with RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 14 of 27 respect to error apparent on the face of the Judgment/Order, the review petition fails. 4.1. What constitutes “an error apparent on the face of the record” has been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vrs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 = (1980) 2 SCC 167, wherein in paragraph 9 it has been held as follows: “9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.” 4.2. Error apparent on the face of the record is a condition precedent for exercise of review power. Following observation made in the case of Rajender Kumar Vrs. Rambhai, AIR 2003 SC 2095 may be relevant: RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 15 of 27 “*** The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.” It is not inept to note that the Supreme Court has cautioned in the very same judgment that “*** for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. ***” 4.3. Regard can be had to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vrs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1964) 5 SCR 174 = 1963 INSC 213 = AIR 1964 SC 1372, wherein it is stated thus: “*** The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 16 of 27 and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no in disguise whereby an means an appeal erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. ***” 4.4. The factual errors, if any, as being canvassed arduously by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be the basis for exercise of review jurisdiction. The position has been well established. Regard may be had to the following observation made in the case of Asharfi Devi Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 5 SCC 86: “It is settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject-matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject-matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 4.5. The reference by the RP to Order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 17 of 27 Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in the matters of Sudhansu Kumar Choudhury Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, OA No.2452 (C) of 2014 (copy of which found place as enclosed as Annexure-6 to Memorandum filed in W.A. No.440 of 2024) is misplaced inasmuch as the questions arose for adjudication as reflected at paragraph 14 of the Judgment rendered in the writ appeal, extracted herein above, did not fall for consideration before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. 4.6. The decision of this Court in State of Odisha Vrs. Gangadhar Sabar, W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2002, vide Judgment dated 10.08.2017 (copy of which is made part of note of submission dated 14.05.2024 filed by the RP in connection with writ appeal) as relied on by the RP does not bear semblance of identicality with the present case. At paragraph 6 of said Judgment it has been made clear by this Court that: “On close scrutiny of case record, it reveals that vacancy in the post of Junior SES was available in the year 1985. The opposite parties claimed promotion to the said post on the plea that they were otherwise eligible for promotion. No counter affidavit was filed by the State-petitioners (the contesting respondents) before learned Tribunal disputing such claim. Resorting to the doctrine of non-traverse, we are constrained to hold that RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 18 of 27 the vacancy meant for promotion was available in the cadre of Junior SES in the year, 1985.” Ergo, in view of the fact that this Court proceeded to
Decision
dispose of the writ petition on the basis of doctrine of non-traverse, the decision in the said Judgment ipso facto would not be applicable to the present context. Minute reading of the pleadings of writ appal as also the review petition, the RP has nowhere demonstrated the delay in filing his cause, after accepting the promotion in the rank of Junior SES Cadre (TGT) with effect from 05.10.2005. 4.7. Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel reference to Kamlesh Verma Vrs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 would submit that a review is not a routine procedure and it is a serious step and the power of review can be exercised only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Stemming on the principles culled out in the said decision, it is highlighted that in the present case the ground agitated by the learned counsel for the RP is not virgin. To buttress her contention, she has made reference to S. Murali Sundaram Vrs. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC 515 and urged that in absence of error apparent on face of record, particularly when this Court has considered the decisions cited by the RP during the RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 19 of 27 course of hearing of writ appeal, there is little scope for exercise of power of review. Perusal of said decision reveals that the case emanated from review allowed in connection with Judgment rendered in writ petition. In the said case the observation of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was: “16. While considering the issue the aforesaid that while exercising two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In Perry Kansagra Vrs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 this Court has observed review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a Judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. it 17. After considering a catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed up as under: (Perry Kansagra case, (2019) 20 SCC 753: RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 20 of 27 „33. *** „*** (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.‟ (As observed in: Inderchand Jain Vrs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33).‟ It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 18. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vrs. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677, it is observed and held that Page 21 of 27 RVWPET No.18 of 2025 scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.” 4.8. While it remains no cavil that promotion is not considered to be a fundamental right but consideration for promotion has now evolved as a fundamental right (Ajay Kumar Shukla Vrs. Arvind Rai, (2021) 12 SCR 1178), even if pleadings contained plea, unless argued, the Court is not bound to deal with and adjudicate. Nevertheless, in the case at hand, taking note of pros and cons of material available on record while disposing of the writ appeal, this Court has delved into the merit of the matter by considering the fact that the RP having accepted his promotion in the year 2005 without any objection/protest and having not shown that his juniors have been given retrospective promotion under the old Rules, i.e., Rules, 1972 notwithstanding that said Rules have been repealed by virtue of Rules, 1993, referring to decision rendered in connection with other employee, RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 22 of 27 as a fence sitter, he could not seek parity and reargue the matter questioning the veracity of the Judgment itself by way of review petition. As a proposition of law it is imperative to record that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference. Diligently applying mind, it is quite unequivocal that this Court in the garb of entertaining review petition give scope for second innings. Considering the arguments advanced during the course of the hearing on review petition would lead to touching upon the merit of the Judgment in writ appeal, which course is not permissible. In this respect Hon‟ble Supreme Court has in the case of Sow Chandra Kante Vrs. Sk. Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 succinctly laid down as follows: “Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a re-hearing. May be, we were not right is refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a Judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, Page 23 of 27 RVWPET No.18 of 2025 of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel‟s certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 4.9. It, thus, cannot be gainsaid that under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to reopen the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. This Court is fortified with the view expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 24 of 27 Mahesh Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 2595 = (1995) 1 SCC 203. 4.10. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded that there is error apparent on the face of the record to undertake review of Judgment dated 05.02.2024 rendered in the writ petition. Conclusion: 5. As has already taken note of above that the basic evidence relating to nature of appointment of the RP being not furnished, the claim for parity of treatment with that of other similarly situated teachers and application of decisions of Odisha Administrative Tribunal could not be considered in the Writ Appeal. On a well-reasoned Judgment the Writ Appeal was allowed. By way of review petition the RP seeks to revive the decision of learned Single Bench found favour with him and prayer is made to nullify the effect of rejection of claim of RP by the opposite parties vide Order dated 02.05.2022. 5.1. Reading of pleading in review petition transpires that the learned counsel for RP seeks a long drawn process of argument on merit of the claim for retrospective promotion. RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 25 of 27 5.2. At this stage it may be worthwhile to have regard to the observations contained in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vrs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Thirumale, (1960) 1 SCR 890 = AIR 1960 SC 137: “An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.” 5.3. No ground is made out for review of Judgment dated 26.11.2024 rendered in the W.A. No.440 of 2024 by this Court, inasmuch as the RP seeks to reopen the matter to contend that the learned Single Judge had taken correct decision by directing the authorities to extend the benefit as was given to the similarly situated teachers. 5.4. This Court having considered each necessary aspect of the matter and observing the distinctive feature on analysis of fact that evidence was lacking as to initial appointment of the RP, the Judgment in Writ Appeal was passed. It was further observed that after repeal of the Rules, 1972 by virtue of the Rules, 1993, the RP could not claim equal treatment. Having not explained RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 26 of 27 the delay in approaching the Tribunal/Court, the writ appeal was correctly decided. 5.5. As is well-settled that rearguing the matter or agitating the same issue, which had already been decided while disposing of the Writ Appeal in the presence of counsel for the parties (vide Orders passed in the Writ Appeal extracted herein above) and having afforded opportunity of hearing, it is impermissible in law to reopen the matter for rehearing of Writ Appeal on merits. 6. In the wake of the above, the review petition stands dismissed along with all the pending interlocutory applications, if any. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree. (HARISH TANDON) CHIEF JUSTICE (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-May-2025 18:11:32 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 16th May, 2025//Aswini/MRS/Laxmikant RVWPET No.18 of 2025 Page 27 of 27