[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Anita Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.472 of 2023
Anita Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA
Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate for O.P. No.4
Mr. S. S. Rao, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 20.02.2026
07. 1. The instant review application is directed against the judgment
dated 29th September, 2023 delivered in several writ appeals taken up
together where it was categorically observed that if the names of any
of the appellants, except the review petitioner find place in the revised
merit list, his/her seniority will be determined in terms of the direction
given by the learned Single Judge. The judgment is challenged on the
premise that by virtue of an interim order dated 2 nd November, 2022
passed in connection with W.A. No.1255 of 2022, the petitioner was
given an intimation vide letter dated 23rd November, 2022 for
Computer Practical Skill Test for which the judgment so far as she is
concerned is liable for review. While passing the judgment, the
Collector and the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur was directed to
open the revised merit list as prepared by the selection committee
meeting held on 16th November, 2022 and 12th December 2022
against 10 vacancies following the reservation rules.
2. According to the review petitioner, once she was allowed to sit
in the Computer Practical Skill Test in terms of the interim order
passed in one of such writ appeals, she could not have been excluded
from the purview of the ultimate directions passed in the said
judgment. Learned counsel for the review petitioner vociferously
submits that the Court cannot ignore the interim order passed in the
appeal at the time of the final judgment and exclusion of the review
petitioner from the merit list, which was submitted in pursuance of the
interim order where her name finds place, invites the review of the
said judgment in relation to the review petitioner.
3. The first and foremost point involved in the instant review
application is whether the judgment impugned herein, suffers from the
vice of the errors apparent on the face of the record. We are conscious
of the provisions contained under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC
encompassing the grounds of the review and there is no gainsaying
that the review jurisdiction can be exercised on three grounds--firstly,
the order or the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of
the record; secondly, discovery of new and important material, which
despite due diligence was not within the knowledge of the counsel and
thirdly, on other substantial reasons akin to the first two grounds.
4. So far as the third ground is concerned, the catena of decisions
would indicate that it cannot stand in isolation to the other two
grounds but must be read in conjunction therewith. The petitioner has
not made out any case of discovery of new and important material or
document, which was not in her knowledge despite due diligence but
appears to have been founded upon the first ground, viz., the errors
apparent on the face of the record. There is no cavil of doubt in our
mind that there is a real, apparent and stark distinction between a
judgment and order, which can be termed as an erroneous and the
judgment and order which suffers from an error apparent on the face
of the record.
5. In the former case, it is open to the aggrieved person to move
the higher Court but the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked in this
regard. The "error apparent on the face of the record" has come up for
discussion in plethora of judgments and all the judgments are in
unison on the point that such error must be patent on the face of the
record and does not include an error, which has to be found out by a
long drawn reasoning or by roving around the voluminous documents.
It also does not imbibe within its folds such errors, which are to be
deduced from a logical inference but the error must be of such
magnitude that on a bare look of the record, the error can be
reasonably ascertained. In recent times, the review applications are
frequently filed inviting the Court to re-hear the matter on merit. The
review jurisdiction cannot be stretched too far to permit the parties to
re-argue the matter, nor does it permit the Court to re-visit its own
order and re-write the same in a different get up.
6. The review jurisdiction is exercised within the limited compass,
more particularly, based upon the legal maxim actus curiae neminem
gravabit; meaning thereby, the act of the Court shall not prejudice any
litigant. It is the duty of the Court to correct the mistake or the error
apparent on the face of the record, but the same cannot be permitted to
be misused by inviting the Court to go deep into the complexities of
the issues and hovering around the voluminous documents.
7. Such being the broad principles of review jurisdiction, we find
that there is a clear finding recorded in the impugned order as to why
the review petitioner has been excluded from the purview of the entire
exercise. Such finding cannot be said to be a perverse as it is based
upon the materials and/or pleadings vividly recorded therein and,
therefore, we do not find that the order suffers from the error apparent
on the face of the record warranting interference under the review
jurisdiction.
8. The review application, thus, fails and is dismissed as such. No
Signature
Not Verified order as to costs.
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
MRUTYUNJAYA
PANDA (Harish Tandon)
Reason:
Authentication Chief Justice
Location: High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026
11:52:04
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
M. Panda
