Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Sri Sugyan Choudhury - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opp. Parties
RVWPET No. 234 of 2012, RVWPET No. 264 of 2012, RVWPET No. 275 of 2012 and RVWPET No. 276 of 2012
Decided On : 25-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Budhadev Routrary, Sr. Advocate with M/s D.Routrary, P.K. Sahoo, S. Das, S. Jena, S.K. Samal & S. Rout, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. D. Lenka, Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. S. Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with M/s S.N. Rath, P.K. Rout & D.N. Rath, Advocates, Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate.
Review jurisdiction of tribunals is limited; appeals cannot be revisited without clear evidence of fraud or statutory authority.
Headnote:(A) Orissa Education Act, 1969 - Sections 24-A and 24-B - Review petitions filed to recall the court's dismissal of an earlier first appeal regarding Grant-in-Aid for appointments - Court finds no error apparent and affirms the Tribunal's earlier decision. (Para 4)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The court emphasizes that tribunals lack general review powers unless expressly permitted by statute, with exceptions for fraud and gross violations of justice. (Para 4.1)
(C) Procedural Limitations - The exclusivity of the procedures defined by the Orissa Education Act restricts the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure for review, establishing that special law prevails over general law. (Para 4.1(b))
(D) Examination of Fraud - The court concludes there was no substantive evidence of fraud or fabrication presented by petitioners for a review, reaffirming the finality of previous determinations. (Para 4.2)
Facts of the case:
Review petitions regarding the refusal of the State Education Tribunal to approve appointments of petitioners at Shantilata Mahavidyalaya and release corresponding Grant-in-Aid; previous orders upheld findings from multiple earlier cases that did not list petitioners as staff.
Findings of Court:
Review petitions dismissed; prior findings of the Tribunal confirmed with no evident grounds for the review sought.
Issues: Whether there is an error apparent warranting recall of the prior bench’s order and if the tribunal had jurisdiction to review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the review jurisdiction is significantly limited and may only be exercised with clear statutory authority; past findings were upheld, denying petitioners’ claims of irregularities.
Result: Review petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
All these Review Petitions seek to recall a Coordinate Bench order dated 31.07.2012 whereby petitioners’ FAO No.177 of 2011 filed under Section 24-C of the ORISSA EDUCATION ACT , 1969 has been dismissed. In the said FAO, a challenge was laid to the order dated 15.03.2011 passed by the State Education Tribunal,
2.1. Shantilata Mahavidyala, Uitikiri, in Balasore district, having been founded in the year, 1980 vide Registration Certificate dated 09.01.1981 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860, secured concurrence of the State Government and affiliation at the hands of Utkal University for Intermediate Arts Course. The CHSE affiliated the +2 college which received Grant-in-Aid with effect from 01.06.1988 vide Government Orders dated 27.02.1999 & 12.03.1999. In the meanwhile, the Governing Body of +3 Wing was registered separately on 25.04.1994 with one Mr. Satrughna Jena as the Secretary. It is claimed that even this Institution received Grant-in-Aid.
2.2. It was the case of petitioners that subsequently Smt. Shantilata Jena became the Secretary of the Governing Body and all they came to be appointed in teaching & non-teaching posts. However, OP Nos.4 to 14 (in REVWPET No. 234 of 2012), in connivance with a section of the Management fabricated certain records to portray their appointment to the posts in question. This, they did hand in glove with OP Nos.1 to 3, as well. They had filed OJC No.10891 of 2001 seeking a direction to the Director of High Education for the approval of their appointments and release of Grant-in-Aid. The Director having favoured their claim, petitioners had filed GIA Case No.36 of 2004, which came to be negatived by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2011. That was the subject matter of further challenge in FAO No.177 of 2011. A Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said FAO by the order that is sought to be recalled in these Review Petitions.
3.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Routray and the Advocate-on- Record appearing for the petitioners contended that both the Tribunal & the Coordinate Bench orders have error apparent on their face; both they overlooked the fraud & fabrication with which OP Nos. 4 to 14 hand in glove with the OP Nos.1 to 3 had perpetrated to the prejudice of petitioners and therefore, review of Coordinate Bench order is eminently warranted for setting at naught the injustice meted out to their clints.
3.2. Per contra, learned AGA Mr. Lenka appearing for the official OPs and learned Advocates representing the private OPs resist the review petitions contending that: Firstly, this Court has no review jurisdiction; the issue relating to appointment of staff members was the subject matter in OJC No.347 of 1989 wherein a mandate was issued to the Director of Higher Education to examine all questions; accordingly, the Director, having accomplished the task, submitted his report dated 24.06.1989 recommending, inter alia, the case of OP Nos.4 to 14, who were working in the college in teaching & non-teaching posts. The Director also had mentioned about irregularities/ illegalities committed by Sachidananda Jena. This resulted into Mr. Jena filing OJC No.880 of 1991, which too was dismissed placing imprimatur on the order of Tribunal.
3.3. The Review Petitioners filed GIA Case No.36 of 2004 seeking for approval of their appointment and for the release of consequential Grant-in-Aid in Shantilata Mahavidyalaya. They were duly selected and appointed by the competent Governing Body. OP Nos.1 to 14 having entered appearance through their counsel resisted the GIA Case contending that the Review Petition
