Orissa High Court
Amrutanshu Prusty vs ) State Of Odisha on 13 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.120 of 2025
Amrutanshu Prusty ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Subhadutta
Routray, Advocate
-versus-
1) State of Odisha, represented ..... Opposite Parties
through its Development
Commissioner-cum-Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of
Water Resources, Rajiv Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar.
2) Secretary, Odisha Public Service Represented By Adv. -
Commission, Cuttack Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
Mr. Arnav Behera,
Advocate for the O.P.
No.2-OPSC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.11.2025
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Arnav Behera, learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-OPSC, and Mr. U.C. Jena,
learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1.
3. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended before this Court that
there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment dated
23.02.2024. To substantiate his argument, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the
impugned judgment, submitted that the finding in paragraphs-22
to 24 are based on the analysis of facts contained in paragraphs16
and 17 of the judgment. He further specifically pointed out that
although the hearing in this case was concluded on 07.02.2024,
however, final judgment was delivered on 23.02.2024. Prior to
delivery of the final judgment, the Orissa Upper Age (Fixation of
Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 was amended by the Amendment
Rule, 2023 thereby including the year 2024 in the list of years in
respect of which age relaxation was granted. He further
emphatically argued that such fact was never brought to the notice
of this Court at the time of delivery of the final judgment on
23.02.2024. On the aforesaid factual background, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, strenuously argued that there is an
error apparent of the face of the record which calls for review of
the judgment delivered by this Court.
4. Mr. Arnav Behera, learned counsel appearing for the
Opposite Party No.2-OPSC, on the other hand, contended that
although it is a fact that the Orissa Upper Age (Fixation of Upper
Age Limit) Rules, 1989 was amended, however, the same was not
brought to the notice of the Court before final judgment was
delivered. He further submitted that such a mistake is a genuine
and bona fide mistake on the part of the Opposite Parties.
However, he further went on argue that even if the said
amendment is taken into consideration, the same would not affect
the final outcome of the judgment.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, this Court directs the
learned counsel for the State to file an affidavit, indicating the
vacancy position in respect of the year 2024 and 2025, before this
Court by the next date.
6. After taking into consideration such vacancy position in
respect of the year 2024 and 2025, this Court shall proceed to
decide the review application.
7. List this matter along with RVWPET No.121 of 2025 in the
week commencing 24th November, 2025.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
