[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Rama Chandra Purty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 9 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      RVWPET No.302 of 2025

                               Rama Chandra Purty                             ........    Petitioner(s)

                                                                               Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Adv.
                                                            -Versus-
                               State of Odisha & Ors.                        ....... Opposite Party(s)

                                                                                 Ms. S. Moharana, ASC

                                        CORAM:
                                        DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                             ORDER

09.02.2026 Order No.

01. I.A. No.443 of 2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. This is an application for dispensing with the filing of the certified

copy of the impugned judgment.

3. It is apparent from the records that the certified copy of the

impugned judgment has already been filed in the meantime.

4. In view of above, the I.A. stands disposed of.

5. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay in filing the RVWPET.

6. Heard.

7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the respective parties and taking into account the averments

taken in the I.A., the delay in preferring the review petition is

condoned.

8. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

9. In this RVWPET, the Petitioner seeks review of the judgment

dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6282 of 2018

dismissing his prayer, wherein the Petitioner had challenged the

order dated 26.03.2018 of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj disengaging him from the

post of Swechhasevi Shikshya Sahayak on the ground that he was

engaged after 26.09.2003.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has

earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 17.10.2025

passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 (Banita Behera vrs. State of

Odisha and Ors.). Hence, he submits that this RVWPET may be

disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of

Banita Behera (supra).

11. Learned counsel for the State submits that she has no objection, if

this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in

the case of Banita Behera (supra).

12. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of

Banita Behera (supra), it appears that similar issue has already

been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was

disposed of on 17.10.2025. The ordering portion of the said

judgment is as follows:

24. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the common judgment dated 22.12.2023, qua the present Petitioner, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record in that it (i) proceeded on an unstated but crucial assumption about the cohort/post to which the Petitioner belonged, without adjudicating the rival case borne out by materials; and (ii) consequently applied the no-prejudice/ritual hearing doctrine to a case where prejudice is self-evident because a determination on facts could well alter the outcome. In the result, the Review Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The common judgment dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and set aside qua the present Petitioner alone. Paragraphs and observations therein inconsistent with this judgment shall not operate against her.

ii. Given the completeness of the pleadings and the circumscribed controversy, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits forthwith, rather than remand, to avoid further delay. iii. The disengagement order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 is quashed, being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and for non- application of mind to the advertisement/cohortdistinction. iv. The matter is remitted to the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj for a de novo decision, within eight weeks, on the following specific issues:

(a) Whether the Petitioner's engagement vide Order No. 209 dated 10.02.2004 was against one of the 16 SC-Women posts notified under the 25.03.2003 advertisement;

(b) Whether those 16 posts were merged into the 15,682 post-26.09.2003 cohort or stood substantively filled in the first cycle owing to the non-availability of trained SC-Women;

(c) The effect, if any, of the second advertisement (Rairangpur 587 posts; 21 SC-Women) and the in-service reservation note on the Petitioner's provisional placement at Serial No. 19, including production and consideration of the final select lists, appointment orders, and the policy basis for in-service earmarking;

(d) Consequential application or inapplicability of W.P.(C) No. 11748 of 2003 to the Petitioner's engagement.

v. The authority shall afford the Petitioner a personal hearing, permit filing of additional documents (including RTI responses, lists, orders), pass a speaking order, and communicate the decision forthwith. Pending the fresh decision, the Petitioner shall be reinstated to engagement within four (4) weeks from receipt of this judgment and continued subject to outcome.

25. Accordingly, the RVWPET and W.P.(C) No.6283 of 2018 are disposed of."

13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties and taking into account the judgment dated 17.10.2025

passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025, this Court is inclined to accede

to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court is, thus, satisfied that the common

judgment dated 22.12.2023, qua the present Petitioner, suffers

from an error apparent on the face of the record in that it (i)

proceeded on an unstated but crucial assumption about the

cohort/post to which the Petitioner belonged, without

adjudicating the rival case borne out by materials; and (ii)

consequently applied the no-prejudice/ritual hearing doctrine to a

case where prejudice is self-evident because a determination on

facts could well alter the outcome. In the result, the Review

Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The common judgment dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and set

aside qua the present Petitioner alone. Paragraphs and observations therein inconsistent with this judgment shall

not operate against him.

ii. The disengagement Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 is

quashed, being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem

and for non-application of mind to the

advertisement/cohort distinction.

iii. The matter is remitted back to the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla

Parishad, Mayurbhanj for a de novo decision, within eight

weeks, on the following specific issues: