The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review and the specific grounds on which a review can be sought, emphasizing the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and prevention of miscarriage of justice in administrative proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

The instant review petition has been filed by the opposite party no.4 of the writ petition for review of the order dated 12.1.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011.

2. Review of the said order has been sought on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity to address his case at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, as also on the ground that the Collector has passed some observation in favour of the petitioner. The review has also been sought for on the basis of the order passed in the case of Jogendra Behera vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2014 (2) OLR 810 and in the case of Budhiram Ho vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2014 (2) OLR 1018.

3. Before going into the merit of the instant writ petition, it would be relevant for this Court to state some factual aspect as per the pleadings made in the writ petition as has been referred in the order to be reviewed. The review petitioner was the opposite party no.4 in the writ petition against whom the writ petitioner/private opposite party no.4 has filed writ petition assailing his appointment which according to him was engaged by producing forged certificate of Upasashtri and to that effect the Collector has directed for instituting F.I.R. for investigation under sections 417, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, prior to institution of W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011 he has filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.12.2012 directing the authority to take decision on the representation if preferred by the petitioner and accordingly the Collector has taken decision vide order dated 9.6.2011, came to finding that the opposite party no.4(review petitioner) has suppressed material facts and fraudulently obtained certificate based upon which he was engaged, accordingly FIR has been instituted but even after coming to the prima facie opinion of commission of fraud by the review petitioner, he has been allowed to continue in service, being aggrieved, this W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011 has been filed. The review petitioner (opposite party no.4) has appeared in the said writ petition after being noticed and detailed counter affidavit has been filed. The matter has been heard by this Court on 12.1.2016 and thereafter order has been passed considering the submission of charge-sheet and framing of charge against the opposite party no.4 and as such direction passed by the Collector not to disengage the opposite party no.4 has been held to be illegal and accordingly quashed by this Court, thereafter the instant review petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the instant review petition is in terms of the order passed by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 48 of 2016 on 29.3.2016. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the review petition as well as the Miscellaneous application.

This Court has thought it proper to pass order in Misc. Case No.72 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, to condone the delay in filing the present review petition since according to the review petitioner the review petition has been filed within time since time period for filing review petitioner is from 29.3.2016 i.e. the date of order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.48 of 2016. This Court after considering the submissions made in the said application is satisfied with the reason for condonation of delay, accordingly the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

5. The review petitioner has taken ground that adequate opportunity, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, has not been given to him and if he would have granted opportunity the order would not have been passed in the writ petition since he would have brought to the notice of the Court various judgments as referred hereinabove.

6. This Court after appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitione