Order No. 21.01.2026
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 90 days
in preferring the instant Review Petition beyond the period
stipulated.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.2 and
3 and the learned Senior Advocate and the learned Advocate
appearing for the respective Interveners raised no serious
objection to the prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the
instant appeal.
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 for the purpose of condonation of delay.
4. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed.
The delay in filing the instant Review petition is condoned.
5. Upon condonation of delay in filing review petition, the
matter is taken up for hearing on the consent of all the counsels
appearing for respective parties. Heard.
6. For review of order dated 23rd December, 2024 passed in
I.A. No.7964 of 2024 (and bath of Interlocutory Applications),
arising out of Writ Appeal No.712 of 2024 vide Annexure-2, this
Review Petition is preferred by the State of Odisha, represented
by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education
Department and the Odisha School Education Programme
Authority ("OSEPA") ("Review Petitioners", for convenience).
7. Record reveals that after disposal of the intra-Court
appeal bearing W.A. No.712 of 2024 vide Judgment dated 18th
June, 2024, in consideration of I.A. Nos.7964, 8547, 8555, 8561,
8568 and 8567 of 2024, this Court passed the following order on
23rd December, 2024:
6. In such view of the matter, we clarify that the said
provision in Clause-8.7 of the Resolution shall not come
in the way of the OSEPA in making recommendations and
the concerned department making appointments against
unfilled vacancies based on the respective merit of the
candidates, against the posts which were advertised.
7. We further clarify that the State of Odisha/ OSEPA
shall consider the merit of the aspirants, irrespective of
the fact whether they had approached this Court or not.
8. The interlocutory applications stand disposed of."
8. Contending that there is error apparent on the face of the
record in passing Order dated 23rd December, 2024 in the
aforesaid Interlocutory Applications, it is asserted by the review
petitioners that the State of Odisha/OSEPA have already
complied with the Judgment dated 18th June, 2024 in the
following manner:
"(a) Based on the CBT held by the OSEPA, the State-
appellant has fixed the first set of minimum cut-off
marks, category wise/subject wise, taking into
account the total number of posts advertised,
considering the marks secured by the respective
candidates in the said test.
(b) Thereafter, Select lists of 18,788 candidates was
prepared of such candidates having secured the
cut-off marks or above and was published on
10.07.2024. In said select list, preference given by
the candidates at the time of application was
considered for allocation of districts, based on
merit-cum-preference.
(c) After the process of verification of original
documents conducted at respective district level,
16,009 candidates were placed in the final merit
list.
(d) Thereafter, allotment of schools to individual
candidates was made through counselling process
at district level and the newly recruited Junior
Teacher (Schematic) have been issued engagement
orders on 05.10.2024 and thereafter, 13241 nos. of
Junior Teacher (Schematic) have already joined
their services."
9. It is submitted by the review petitioners that in paragraph
64(iii) of the Judgment dated 18th June, 2024, the State was to
directed to re-fix the cut-off marks, from time to time, in the
event the posts remained unfilled, whereas in Order dated 23rd
December, 2024 OSEPA was directed to recommend to the State
for making appointment against unfilled vacancies based on
merit of the candidates being passed. Such directions are contrary
to Clause-8.7 of the Resolution.
10. In course of hearing, Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Biswal, learned
Advocate appearing for the Interveners furnished a copy of the
Judgment dated 28th March, 2025 passed in RVWPET No.55 of
2025. Perusal of said Judgment transpires that review of
aforesaid Order dated 23rd December, 2024 passed in I.A.
Nos.7964, 8547, 8555, 8561, 8568 and 8567 of 2024 in
connection with Judgment dated 18th June, 2024 rendered in Writ
Appeal No.712 of 2024 along with Writ Appeal Nos.580, 727
and 740 of 2024 was sought for. This Court declined to interfere
with Order dated 23th December, 2024 passed in aforesaid
Interlocutory Applications.
11. Pondering upon the said Judgment dated 28th March,
2025 passed in RVWPET No.55 of 2025, copy of which being
handed over, Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the Review Petitioners would submit that
nothing left for him to submit in connection with the grounds
taken in the present review petition. In his inimitable fairness he
conceded that there remains no scope in the present matter to
argue in support of grounds for review.
12. In view of such conceding position, it is apposite to
reproduce paragraphs-7 to 12 of the Judgment dated 28th March,
2025 passed in RVWPET No.55 of 2025, wherein the order
dated 23rd December, 2024 passed in aforesaid I.As. was the
subject matter for review:
"7. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits
that if after preparation of the merit list, the selected
candidates would be allotted district-wise as per the
preference given by them at the time of submission of
application, then the Review-Petitioners may be deprived
of being selected and appointed. He submits that as per
the order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in batch of
Writ Petitions like the Petitioners, the Draft Merit List
should be prepared district-wise.
8. He, therefore, submits that the Draft Merit List should
be prepared in terms of Clause-8.3 of the Resolution
dated 22nd August, 2023 and the Petitioners may be
given appointment accordingly. He also made an
alternative submission that if the merit list is prepared in
terms of the order sought to be reviewed, then the case of
the Petitioners may be considered if any vacancies are
left over.
9. Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA submits that the order
dated 23rd December, 2024 need not be interfered with
as this Court has clarified that provisions in Clause-8.7
of the Resolution should not come on the way of OSEPA
in making recommendation by the concerned Department
making appointment against unfilled vacancies based on
the respective merit of the candidates against the posts
which were advertised. It was also further clarified that
the State of Odisha/OSEPA should consider the merit of
the aspirants irrespective of the fact that whether they
had approached this Court or not. Thus, there is no
illegality in the said clarification. Further, the Review-
Petitioners would be benefitted, if they satisfy the
conditions at paragraphs-64 and 65 of the judgment
passed in W.A. No 712 of 2024 and clarification made in
the order sought to be reviewed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. We find that this Court, in the judgment passed in
W.A. No. 712 of 2024 has declared that Clause-8.3 of the
Resolution dated 22nd August, 2023 and other follow up
provisions are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and set out procedures for filling up
vacancies of Junior Teachers (Schematic) at paragraphs-
64 and 65 of the judgment. The said judgment is not
challenged. While passing the order sought to be
reviewed, this Court reiterating the direction in W.A. No.
712 of 2024 has only clarified that Clause-8.7 of the
Resolution shall not come on the way of OSEPA in
making recommendations for appointment to the unfilled
vacancies. It is also clarified that the State
Government/ODRPA shall consider the merit of the
aspirants, irrespective of the fact whether they had
approached this Court or not. Although the Petitioners
are not parties to W.A. No. 712 of 2024 and subsequent
I.As, order of which sought to be reviewed, there appears
no apparent error on the face of the record or material
irregularity in it. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain
the RVWPET.
12. Accordingly, the RVWPET is disposed of with an
observation that the case of the Petitioners may be
considered, if they satisfy the direction made in the
judgment passed in WA No.712 of 2024 and batch of
appeals and order dated 23rd December, 2024 passed in
consideration of the Interlocutory Applications thereto,
which is sought to be reviewed."
13. In the wake of the above, there is no other option left but
to dismiss the Review Petition, as this Court has already decided
the issue raised in the present matter while disposing of
RVWPET No.55 of 2025 in the case of Rajalaxmi Balabantaray
and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others).
14. As a result of the disposal of the review petition, pending
interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Aswini
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 22-Jan-2026 13:52:03
