Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 528 (ORI)

Ambuja Chandra Kesh v. State of Odisha

2017-05-05

S.N.PRASAD, SANJU PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The instant review petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.17746 of 2016 dtd.5.4.2017 inter alia on the grounds: (i) That the court has not appreciated the comparative assessment of one or the other employees who have been granted promotion ignoring the case of the review petitioner/writ petitioner. (ii) That the court, while dealing with the issue, have ignored to examine the candidature of one Karunakar Panigrahi since his CCR has not been produced by the State authorities, as such it could not have been examined which is evident from the table incorporated in the order sought to be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party – State Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate, refuting the argument and submission made by the review petitioner, has submitted that the court has considered the entire aspect of the matter, the entire record which was voluminous, was produced before the court, as has been directed and thereafter the court, on its examination, has passed the order. So far as the first ground of the review petitioner, it has been submitted that the consideration of 3 years has been taken for one or the other employees. So far as the contention that the Debendranath Mohanty and Narendra Kumar Nayak are happens to be less meritorious than that of the writ petitioner, but that is not factually correct, as would be evident from the table incorporated in the orders sought to be reviewed. So far as the second ground it has been submitted that the petitioner has come out with the new ground which was not taken in the writ petition, however, submission has been made that merely on account of the fact that name of Mr. Karunakar Panigrahi is not reflected in the table, it does not mean that the court has not gone through his CCR, rather he has pointed out that the court has specifically observed in the order that “the records of all the 16 candidates have been scrutinized and thereafter the order has been passed, hence it is not the case of the review since there is no error on the face of record and new facts have been brought on which was not there at the time of disposal of the writ petition. He submits that the jurisdiction of review is very limited and the petitioner by way of this review application which has been filed in the garb of appeal sought to be review the order, hence the review application is not maintainable. 3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the order passed by us in W.P.(C) No.17746 of 2016. The fact which fell for consideration before this court was with respect to the decision of the departmental promotion committee as to whether the decision making process was legal or not? The petitioner’s claim before the writ court was that the decision making process by the departmental promotion committee was totally illegal because even though he was more meritorious than that of the other candidates, has not been considered, hence he approached this court. We, after hearing the parties on several occasions, have directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the original record pertaining to the decision of the departmental promotion committee to assess as to whether the decision making process is legal or not. In pursuance to the order passed by this court, the document which was voluminous, was produced, we have examined the same minutely and thereafter on its close scrutiny, we have gathered that there was no fault in the decision making process because the candidature of the petitioner was considered but since was found to be less meritorious than that of other candidates, hence this court has came to a definite finding that there was no error in the decision making process and the court following the settled proposition that the court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot judicially review the decision of the departmental promotion committee rather the scope of judicial review is very limited, i.e. only to see the legality and propriety of the decision making process, hence dismissed the writ petition. The court while dismissing the writ petition has considered the CCR of all the candidates who have been considered by the departmental promotion committee and on its perusal this court has found that the candidature of the petitioner was less meritorious than that of the other candidates. The court while dismissing the writ petition has considered the CCR of all the candidates who have been considered by the departmental promotion committee and on its perusal this court has found that the candidature of the petitioner was less meritorious than that of the other candidates. The court has considered the candidature of Debendranath Mohanty and Narendra Kumar Nayak, reference of them specifically been made referred in the review petition by stating therein that the candidature of the writ petitioner is better than that of Debendranath Mohanty and Narendra Kumar Nayak, hence this is the first ground asserted in the review petition for review of the order passed by this court, but we after going through the order passed by us, have found that this court after taking into consideration the candidature of Debendranath Mohanty and Narendra Kumar Nayak who happens to be more meritorious than that of the present petitioner, as would be evident from the table reflected in the judgment, has rejected his plea. Accordingly, the first ground taken by the petitioner to review the order is not acceptable to us, hence the same is rejected. 4. Accordingly, the first ground taken by the petitioner to review the order is not acceptable to us, hence the same is rejected. 4. So far as the second ground that the state has not produced the relevant document pertaining to Sri Karunakar Panigrahi, as such the same has not been reflected in the table but this argument is not acceptable to us for the reasons: (i) That this was not the ground taken by the petitioner in the writ petition even though it is a ground for review but this ground was available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition and as such he for the first time is taking this ground which cannot be said to be a ground to review the order; (ii) Moreover this court has taken into consideration the entire record and thereafter the finding has been given, which we find from the order passed by this court which is at page 7 that: “we have perused the original record containing the relative assessment of one or the other candidates who have been promoted, 16 in numbers, and have found that all the candidates have better service performance in comparison to that of the applicant.” This specific finding given by this court clarifies the situation that this court has minutely gone into the respective assessment made by the competent authority with respect to one or the other employees, merely because the same has not been reflected in the table, does not mean that it will be a ground for review. 5. In view of the facts stated above, we are of the conscious view that the petitioner has failed to make out a ground for review since no case has been made out showing this court that there is any error apparent on the fact of record or the relevant documents could not have been produced before this court in spite of due diligence, hence considering the fact that the scope of judicial review is very limited, we are of the considered view that no interference can be shown in exercise of power of review, accordingly the instant review petition is dismissed.