The main legal point established in the judgment is that factual errors cannot be the basis for the exercise of review jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. The Writ Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7322 of 2020 assailing the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri-O.P. No.2 dated 20.01.2022 in A.W.W. Misc. Case No.110 of 2010 (Annexure-1) to the WP(C) thereby affirming the order dated 08.05.2015 by which the petitioner working as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre was disengaged and Opposite Party No.5, (Pravasini Mohanty) was allowed to continue as such.

2. On consideration of materials on record this Court by Judgment dated 05.05.2022 at Annexure-9 allowed the Writ Petition. Paragraphs thereof relevant for just adjudication of the present RVWPET is extracted hereunder.

xxxxx

“17. It is clear from the impugned order that in objective assessment was made to test the qualification inter se between the petitioner and two others who participated in the selection procedure.

18. On such objective assessment based on the guidelines in which all the members of the Selection Committee participated, admittedly the petitioner secured the highest mark. In the face of such selection it was not open to the Collector to come to a conclusion in a highly arbitrary manner without any rhyme and reason that the selection of opposite party No.5 is to take precedence over that of the petitioner.

19. Considering the submission of learned counsel and taking into account the recitals in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is outcome of arbitrary, exercise of power and is tainted with malafide due to non-application of mind and hence, the same is set aside.

20. In terms of the earlier direction of this Court in the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner quoted hereinabove (order dated 30.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.23721 of 2015), opposite party no.4 is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper of Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.”

x x x x x

3. Review Petition has been filed at the instance of the said Opposite Party No.5 in the Writ Petition No.7322 of 2020 for review of the judgment dated 05.05.2022 at Annexure 9.

4. The ground(s) of review as urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner (Opposite Party No.5) is extracted hereunder;

“i). that the writ petitioner had suppressed the real background facts of the case and had made false and fraudulent averments before this Hon’ble Court and adopted sharp practice to obtain the order in her favour.

ii). that the Collector, Puri (O.P.No.2) had on two occasion held that action of C.D.P.O., Nimapara (O.P.No.4) in appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre under I.C.D.S., Nimapara was illegal, improper, and based on manipulation and fraud, yet the O.P.No.4-C.D.P.O., Nimapara, while filing the counter in this case had deliberately supported her own action by filing the false and misleading counter contrary to the orders of the Collectors, Puri (O.P.No.2) to help the petitioner and support her illegal appointment.

iii). that the order passed in this writ application is based on error apparent in the face of the record and this is fit case for review of the Judgment passed on 05.05.2022.”

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with vehemence that since the tenor of the counter was contrary to the factual matrix of the case at hand relating to selection of Anganwadi Helper and the same was taken into consideration by this Court while passing the judgment under review, in the interest of Justice in exercise of review jurisdiction, the said judgment ought to be reviewed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed or in the alternative, recalling the judgment under review matter should be heard afresh.

6. Brief background shorn of unnecessary details is quoted hereunder for convenience of ready reference;

i. The Writ Petitioner had appro