ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

RVWPET No.220 of 2024

(Arising out of judgment dated 15.05.2024

passed in W.A. No.2265 of 2023

directed against judgment dated 09.08.2023

in W.P.(C) Nos.29187 of 2019 and 18128 of 2009)

AND

IA No.301 of 2024

In the matter of an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

for condonation of delay in filing review petition

under Section 114 read with Order LXVII, Rule 1

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

***

Sri Purusottam Swain.

Aged about 51 years,

Son of Khetra Mohan Swain,

At: Kasigada, PO/Via: Oupada,

District: Balasore. … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha,

Represented through its

Commissioner-cum-Secretary to

Government, School and Mass Education

Department, Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

2. The Director of Elementary Education,

Odisha, Bhubaneswar,

District: Khordha.

3. The District Education Officer, Balasore, At/PO: Balasore, District: Balasore.

4. Managing Committee, Represented through its Secretary, Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, At: Tilada, PO: Sarugaon, Via: Oupada, District: Balasore.

5. The Headmaster, Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, At: Tilada, PO: Sarugaon, Via: Oupada, District: Balasore.

6. Gayadhar Nayak, Aged about 60 years, Son of Arjuna Nayak, At: Tilada, P.O.: Sarugaon, Via: Oupada, District: Balasore. … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : M/s. Bini Mishra, P. Nayak and A. Mishra, Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjay Rath, Additional Government Advocate P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 05.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 05.12.2025

JUDGMENT

I.A. No.301 of 2024

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 75 days in preferring the instant review petition beyond the period of limitation.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties raised no serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the instant review petition.

3. After perusal of the averments made in the instant application and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that explanation offered is satisfactory and constitute sufficient cause which prevented the review petitioner from filing the review petition within period specified.

4. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed. The delay in filing the instant review petition is condoned.

5. On the consent of the parties, this Court proceeded to hear the review petition on merit.

RVWPET No.220 of 2024

6. Review of judgment dated 15th May, 2024 rendered in Writ Appeal No.2265 of 2023 is sought for by the petitioner by way of the present Petition styled as “an application under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.

7. The Synopsis appended to the writ petition reveals that the review of the aforesaid judgment is sought for on the ground that “some of the important material facts, which has transpired during the pendency of the writ appeal and the same was already available on the record had not been brought to the notice”.

8. Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to paragraphs-9.13 and 9.17 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

“9.13. The learned Single Judge also has taken note that Gayadhar Nayak, being senior to the appellant, is entitled to the second post (Science Attendant) and thereby the appellant has no right to claim the said post.

9.17. It remained factually undisputed that the appellant was junior to the respondent No.6. It is seen that although the services of the appellant in the post of “Peon” at Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, were approved on 28.03.2009, the same was later modified by the Inspector of Schools by appropriately positioning the respondent No.6 by an Order dated 13.10.2009. Consequently, the services of the respondent No.6 Gayadhar Nayak, Peon was approved as “Science Attendant” and the services of appellant-Purusottam Swain as “Peon” (Night