IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.435 of 2023

Application for Review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.,

1908 read with Section 114 of C.P.C.

Odisha Public Service …. Petitioner

Commission

-Versus-

Trilochan Dash and others …. Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Arnav Behera, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Trilochan Dash (in person) opposite

party no.1

Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA for

opposite party no.2.

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dates of hearing : 12.11.2025 & 13.11.2025

Date of Judgement : 29.11.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO:

I.A. No.456 of 2023

1. The I.A. has been filed for condonation of reported

delay of 22 days in filing the Review Petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite party appearing in person.

Having gone through the I.A. supported by affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing the Review Petition particularly paragraphs-2, 3 & 4 and we find that adequate cause has been shown explaining the delay. Reported delay of

22 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Accordingly, the I.A. is favoured and disposed of.

2. RVWPET No.435 of 2023 The RVWPET has been filed by the respondent in the Writ Appeal seeking review of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed in W.A. No.1349 of 2023 arising out of W.P.C(OAC) No.3758 of 2017 disposed of on 09.05.2023. The said order dated 18.09.2023 was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in which one of us, M.S. Sahoo, J, was a Member. The matter has been placed before this Bench for consideration as per the notification dated 08.05.2025 of the High Court, regarding listing of matters.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner-respondent- opposite party Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), brings to our notice, the grounds stated in the appeal memo for seeking the review, particularly, grounds-‘A & B’, which are reproduced herein:-

“A. For that the order dtd. 18.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Court has caused serious prejudice to the present petitioner that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court despite of due diligence that even if two marks are allowed to be awarded in favour of all the candidates the petitioner is not being able to qualify to be selected as an Asst. Public Prosecutor pursuant to the Advertisement No. 12 of 2016-17.

B. FOR that it is pertinent to mention here that since it is a select list pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2016-17, if two marks are awarded against the Question No, 18 and 58, seven numbers of Asst. Public Prosecutors who are serving now will be out of service as per the revised select list and fresh seven candidates will have to be interviewed to be newly recruited as Asst. Public Prosecutor in respect of the Advertisement No. 12 of 2016-17 and they may also claim their seniority in future. It is pertinent to mention here that those serving Asst. Public Prosecutors whose interest are going to be affected were not also made Parties before this Hon’ble Court. That such important facts could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Appeal by the petitioner which would result in serious miscarriage of justice.”

4. It was submitted that as indicated in ground ‘A’ the applicant for the post, Shri Trilochan Dash, the opposite party- respondent-applicant/petitioner (who appears in person before us) is not getting selected after award of one mark each in question Nos. 18 and 58.

Accordingly, we directed the appellant-OPSC to produce the relevant documents in original in a sealed cover to be produced before us to buttress the submission as contended in the grounds- A and B.

5. Pursuant to our order dated 13.10.202