Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 735 (ORI)

Laxmidhar Rana v. State of Orissa

2017-07-17

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The instant review petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking review of the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18968 of 2016 along with the application to condone the delay in filing the same. 2. We thought it proper to pass an appropriate order in the application having been filed for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to order passed by this Court having been communicated with some delay, the instant review petition has been filed with some delay and as such, prayer has been made to condone the delay otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that there is no objection with respect to ground taken for condoning the delay in filing the instant review petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant review petition is condoned for the reasons shown in the application. 5. So far as the prayer made in the instant review petition for review of the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18968 of 2016 is concerned, we after going through the pleadings made in the review petition as well as arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein ground has been taken that the issue regarding regularization of the service of the applicant/petitioner has not been discussed in the order of the Tribunal, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has not taken into consideration this matter, so on that account, the order needs to be reviewed. 6. While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has no case since he has been appointed on contingent basis, which was purely on temporary and his case was taken into consideration, but since his position found place at Sl. No. 3 and due to non-availability of post, he was not appointed, the said fact has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and taking into consideration the same, the Original Application has been dismissed. This Court has appreciated this aspect of the matter and declined to interfere with the same. No. 3 and due to non-availability of post, he was not appointed, the said fact has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and taking into consideration the same, the Original Application has been dismissed. This Court has appreciated this aspect of the matter and declined to interfere with the same. This Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal is of the year 2009, which was challenged before this Court in the year 2016. He also submits that the order has consciously been passed by this Court after taking into consideration the materials available on record, hence the same need not be reviewed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. It is evident from the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18968 of 2016 that the applicant/petitioner has approached the Tribunal for his appointment against the vacancies occurred in the year 1990 for the post of Driver, in which, he has participated in the interview duly been conducted by the competent authority, out of the three posts, two posts were filled up for general category candidates, since the petitioner belongs to unreserved category, found placed at Sl. No.3, could not be given appointment. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not interfere with the relief sought for by the petitioner. 9. This Court has taken into consideration the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal way back on 21.8.2009 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016 claiming for appointment or regularization. But this Court after taking into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, which has not been explained in the writ petition, decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. So far as the ground for review is concerned, the order cannot be reviewed taking into consideration the delay and laches committed on the part of the applicant/petitioner in approaching this Court against the order of the Tribunal passed way back on 21.8.2009. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for review. 10. So far as the ground for review is concerned, the order cannot be reviewed taking into consideration the delay and laches committed on the part of the applicant/petitioner in approaching this Court against the order of the Tribunal passed way back on 21.8.2009. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for review. It is settled that the scope of review is very limited, i.e., it can only be exercised in case where there is error apparent on the face of record or the document could not have been filed in spite of all due diligence, but we have not found anything which warrants this Court to exercise the power of review. 11. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18968 of 2016 needs no review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.