Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 669 (ORI)

Ritanjali Puhan v. State of Odisha

2017-07-06

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This instant review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 22.3.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.20894 and 5375 of 2016. 2. The ground for review, as has been made by the review petition in the instant review petition, is that after disposal of the writ petitions they have got information under Right to Information Act whereby and where under it is evident that 33 vacancies of Junior Clerk for the year 2013 have not been included in the subsequent vacancies advertised in the year 2015 and as such appropriate direction may be passed to the authority by reviewing the order passed by this Court dated 22.3.2017 to publish result of the 33 vacancies advertised by way of advertisement in the year 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the ground made by the review petitioners in the review petition. Learned Additional Government advocate representing the State has submitted that the petitioners are seeking review of the order by virtue of the information got under Right to Information Act. He has further submitted that the W.P.(C) No.20894 of 2016 has been filed on 25.11.2016 which has been dismissed on 22.3.2017 and after its disposal an application under the Right to Information Act has been filed on 31.3.2017 but in pursuance thereof information has been supplied on 13.4.2017, as such it cannot be said to be a ground for review. It is not a case that in spite of due diligence the document could not have been produced before the court which is paramount condition for seeking review of the order passed by the court of law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioners have filed Original Application Nos.744(C) and 374(C) of 2014 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack seeking direction to publish result of the selection process initiated by virtue of the advertisement No.2145 dated 7.7.2013. The Tribunal has declined to interfere to fill up the rest 33 posts of the year 2013 after fresh advertisement having been made in the year 2014-15 with observation that if no advertisement has been published in the meanwhile in the year 2014 or in 2015, then it is up to the recruitment Committee to exercise its discretion to fill up the vacancies. 6. 6. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petitions with specific observation in the order that fresh advertisement has been published by the Staff Selection Commission for the year 2015 for Keonjhar district and recruitment process has been completed, considering this aspect of the matter, we have declined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has tried to impress upon the Court that 33 vacancies of the Junior Clerk posts of the year 2013 was not the subject matter of the recruitment process which was initiated in the year 2015 and as such the order needs fresh consideration by reviewing it with direction to publish result of 33 vacancies which pertains to the advertisement published in the year 2013. It is settled that jurisdiction of review is very limited and it can only be entertained if there is error apparent on the face of the record or the fact could not have been brought on record in spite of due diligence. It is evident in the instant case that the writ petition been filed in the month of November, 2016, the same has been disposed of on 22.3.2017 and thereafter certain documents have been demanded under the Right to Information Act vide application dated 31.3.2017 i.e. after disposal of the writ petitions, in pursuance thereof, some information has been furnished regarding vacancies by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Collectorate, Keonjhar to the Public Information Officer, Collectorate, Keonjhar. 8. We have not been impressed upon the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that this is the information under the Right to Information Act without supporting valid document. Further it is not a case where the petitioners have made out a case in spite of due diligence the document could not have been produced before the court which could be said to be ground for review and as such this Court is of the view that the review petition is not fit to be entertained. 9. In view of the limited jurisdiction of the review as stated above, we are not inclined to exercise power conferred upon it to review the order. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.