High Court of Orissa dismissed a Review Petition challenging an order of the State of Orisha Administrative Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the issues raised by the petitioner regarding age limits and percentage of marks during the original batch hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET(RPC) No.123 of 2016
Mihir Ranjan Nayak & Ors.
Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
…. Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
07.02.2023
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner on behalf of Mr. S.D. Routray and Mr. R.N. Acharya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order dtd.17.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 3589(C) of 2014 and batch.
4. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner contended that the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 3643(C) of 2014 inter alia with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to admit the review petition and further be pleased to recall/review the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 3643(C) of 2014 filed by the applicants and the said original application may be disposed of on merit considering the relief sought for by the applicants.
// 2 //
And for this act of kindness, the applicants as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
5. It is contended that the issue raised by the Petitioner was never considered by the Tribunal while passing the order in question and the said order accordingly is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case.
6. Mr. Acharya, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Tribunal in the batch of Original Applications considered the stipulations contained in Clause 2 & 3 of the advertisement dtd.27.10.2014 and after having a detailed discussion the Tribunal ultimately held as follows:-
“Hence taking into consideration all these aspects, while quashing the impugned advertisement inviting applications for engagement of these teacher in Govt. and upgraded contract High School during 2014-15, so far as it relates to fixation of upper age limit as 32 years; without altering the advertisement and the stipulations made therein in y other manner and interfering in the impugned any resolution; we direct the Respondent authorities to issue a corrigendum enhancing the upper age limit to 42 years for the recruitment year 2014-15 only; inviting applications from the eligible candidates excepting those who have already submitted then applications) fixing a date and proceed with the recruitment, following the relevant Rule/resolution as expeditiously as possible and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and issue appointment order to the selected candidates.”
7. Mr. Acharya accordingly contended that the issue raised by the present Petitioner with regard to fixation of the percentage of mark,
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
which comes under Clause 3 of the advertisement has been taken note of by the Tribunal and after thorough discussion the Tribunal only allowed the prayer with regard to enhancement of the upper age limit.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the issue raised by the present Petitioner was considered by the Tribunal with passing of the order in a batch of Original Applications. The grounds taken for review of the order is not acceptable as the Tribunal while passing the order in question has taken note of the stand of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for Review is not entertainable and the same is dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition seeking review of the Tribunal order on fixation of age limit and percentage of marks for teacher recruitment is maintainable since the issues were considered by the Tribun
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mihir Ranjan Nayak
State of Odisha
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
