Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 148
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, Adv.
The court held that review powers are not conferred under the Orissa Education Act unless fraud is established, confirming the restrictive nature of review compared to appeals.
Headnote:(A) Orissa Education Act, 1969 - Sections 24-A, 24-B, and 24-C - Review petitions to recall a bench order dismissing an FAO which challenged a tribunal's dismissal of a GIA Case for appointment approval - Legality and maintainability scrutinized, particularly in light of allegations of fraud and procedural irregularities - Review denied based on procedural limitations, and no evidence of fraud established. (Paras 1, 4-4.1)
(B) Court's Review Jurisdiction - The general principle limits the power of review unless expressly provided by statute, with exceptions for fraud or injustice. (Para 4.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the review of an earlier decision involving the denial of their appointment approvals and grant-in-aid claims based on perceived irregularities and lack of qualifications. The petitioners claimed fraud by opposing parties in fabricating records. (Paras 1-2.2)
Findings of Court:
Review petitions lacked merit and maintainability due to the established finality of earlier proceedings and the absence of significant new evidence or legal grounds for review. (Paras 4.2)
Issues: The main issues were the power of the tribunal regarding review, the credibility of previous findings, and whether procedural irregularities warranted a review of the previous judgment. (Paras 4.1-4.2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the legislative framework of the Orissa Education Act does not expressly confer a review power to the Tribunal; thus, the review petitions were impermissible under the Act’s provisions. The principles established clarify the restrictive nature of review procedures compared to appeal processes. (Paras 4.1-4.2)
Result: Review petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of review petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of petitioners and opposition (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion of dismissal of review petitions (Para 4) |
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. A brief fact matrix of the case:
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. Contentions of the parties:
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 s
