[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Naresh Chandra Mohanty vs Om Prakash Singh on 22 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.102 of 2024
(An application under Section 114 read with Order-47 Rule-1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
Naresh Chandra Mohanty ... Petitioner
- Versus -
Om Prakash Singh, CMD, ... Opposite Parties
MCL, Jagruti Vihar, Burla,
Sambalpur and another
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner ... Mr. Naresh Chandra Mohanty
(In Person)
For Opposite Parties ... Mr. Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Counsel
M/s. H. Mohanty, K. Sattar,
D. Samantaray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
___________________________________________________________
Date of hearing-23.10.2025 :: Date of judgment-22.01.2026
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.
1. The above noted review petition has been filed by the
Petitioner, who happens to be the Writ Petitioner, in person
under Section 114 read with Order-47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking review of the judgment and order dated
23.02.2024 passed by this Court in CONTC No.3931 of
2023, arising out of W.P.(C) No.10786 of 2022.
2. Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Mohanty, the Petitioner-in-
person, as well as Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the review
petition and the documents annexed thereto.
3. The factual backdrop of the Petitioner's case, in a
nutshell, is that earlier the Petitioner had approached this
Court by filing a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.10786 of
2022 with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2
to appoint him in the post of Electrician CAT-III (T) which
was lying vacant as per Annexure-9 to the writ petition, by
restoring the seniority as per the select list which was
published by the MCL in the year 1996 or, in the alternative,
pay the Petitioner adequate compensation for the damages
caused to him as a result of arbitrary and whimsical act of the
Opposite Parties.
4. The above noted Writ Petition filed by the Review
Petitioner was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated
24.02.2023 by directing the Petitioner to approach the
Opposite Parties along with copy of the judgment and in such
eventuality, it was further directed that the Opposite Parties
shall consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment of
the Petitioner on contractual basis as an Electrician in MCL
subject to the eligibility and suitability of the Petitioner. A
further direction was also given to the effect that in the event
it was found that the Petitioner is age-barred, then the
Opposite Parties shall also consider the case of the Petitioner
and give him an engagement on contractual basis subject to
availability of the post and requirement of service of
Electrician in MCL. The aforesaid direction of this Court was
subject to the condition that the same shall not confer any
right upon the Petitioner and he cannot claim any post as a
matter of right and, that such a direction was given only in
the factual background of the present case.
5. After disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Parties to consider his case in terms
of the judgment dated 24.02.2023. Since the Opposite Parties
did not consider his case in terms of the aforesaid judgment,
the Petitioner filed a contempt application bearing CONTC
No.3931 of 2023. The Opposite Parties-Contemnors appeared
in the contempt application and submitted their show cause
reply stating therein that the Opposite Parties-Contemnors
shall take prompt steps for complying with the judgment
dated 24.02.2023. In the show cause affidavit, the Opposite
Parties-Contemnors have also referred to the chequered
history of the present case and have indicated details of a
series of litigations initiated at the instance of the present
Petitioner against the Opposite Party-Corporation.
6. The Opposite Parties-Contemnors further took a stand
that although a right had accrued in favour of the Petitioner
vide order dated 02.05.2008, however, such right having been
negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
27.01.2011 in SLP(C) No.14784 of 2008, the Petitioner could
not have claimed for appointment.
7. It was further submitted on behalf of the Opposite
Parties-Contemnors that the Petitioner approached the
Opposite Parties by filing representations on 06.03.2023,
12.03.2023, 16.03.2023 and 03.04.2023. Such representations
filed at the instance of the Petitioner were duly examined
keeping in view the order dated 24.02.2023 by the
Contemnors and eventually the same were disposed of vide
order dated 20.04.2023 by the Deputy General Manager,
MCL by passing a reasoned and speaking order. A specific
stand was taken in the show cause affidavit by the Opposite
Parties-Contemnors that there is no provision of appointment
of Electrician on contractual basis in MCL. As such, there is
no scope to accommodate the Petitioner as Electrician on
contractual basis. The Opposite Parties-Contemnors further
took a stand that MCL has not issued any advertisement for
recruitment of Electrician-CAT-III (T).
8. On a careful consideration of the submission made by
the Petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Opposite Parties-Contemnors in the above noted
contempt application and on a careful examination of the
materials on record, this Court observes that the present
litigation is driven more by anxiety and sentiment of the
Petitioner, and that the claim of the Petitioner has no legal
basis. This Court further observes that the Petitioner has been
fighting legal battles since 1996 for getting an appointment in
the Opposite Party-Corporation.
9. Furthermore, pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party-Corporation
filed a further affidavit on 24.09.2023 in the aforesaid
contempt application. Such affidavit filed by the Opposite
Party-Contemnor No.2 revealed that the Contemnors made an
arrangement for engagement of the Petitioner through one of
the Contractors of MCL, who has been engaged to perform
contractual work of MCL and where there is requirement of
the job of an Electrician. In fact the agency, namely,
Mahalaxmi Saakar (JV) wrote a letter to the Petitioner dated
04.09.2023 indicating therein that they are in need of few
trained electrical personnel having ITI (Electrician)
Certificate along with valid HT/LT permit under Indian
Electricity Rules and, accordingly, they had also sought for
consent of the Petitioner for such engagement.
10. In reply to the further affidavit dated 24.09.2023 filed
by the Opposite Parties-Contemnors, the Petitioner filed a
reply affidavit stating therein that the offer of appointment
which has been given to the Petitioner is by an outside
contract agency and not by the MCL authority. Accordingly,
the Petitioner-in-person stated before this Court that the offer
of appointment by the third party agency is not in consonance
with the order passed by this Court in the writ application that
was filed at the instance of the Petitioner, and that the
Opposite Parties-Contemnors have deliberately violated this
Court's order.
11. On perusal of the record in the contempt proceeding,
this Court was satisfied with regard to the steps taken for
compliance by the Opposite Parties-Contemnors. Although
this Court specifically asked the Petitioner-in-person as to
how the Opposite Parties have violated this Court's order, the
Petitioner, appearing in person, could not provide a
satisfactory explanation to the same. Ultimately, this Court,
on a careful consideration of the records as well as the
submissions made by the Petitioner-in-person as well as the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-
Contemnors, dropped the contempt proceeding by holding
that the Opposite Parties-Contemnors have not violated this
Court's order wilfully and deliberately and, as such, they are
not liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of
Courts Act.
12. Immediately after disposal of the contempt application,
the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing
the present review petition seeking review of order dated
23.02.2024 passed by this Court in CONTC No.3931 of
2023, arising out of W.P.(C) No.10786 of 2022.
13. On a careful examination of the review petition and the
grounds taken under paragraph-2 of the review petition, this
Court is of the considered view that none of the grounds
taken therein is a good ground to seek review of the judgment
and order passed by this Court on 23.02.2024. It is needless
to mention here that the scope of review as has been
propounded in several judicial pronouncements is that any
person aggrieved can seek review of a judgment provided he
satisfies the Court that there exists an error apparent on the
face of the record or that there was discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person
aggrieved or could not be produced by him at the time when
the hearing took place.
14. The scope of judicial review in a review application is
extremely limited and unless there is an error apparent on the
face of the record, it is the settled position of law that such
order/judgment does not call for any review. The words
"error apparent on the face of the record" mean that the error
must be glaring and apparent on the face of the record itself.
Furthermore, the scope of judicial interference in a review
petition has been clearly laid down in Order-47 Rule-1 of the
C.P.C. Such provision has also been interpreted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts. By
applying the established standards to entertain a review
petition, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as by this Court, this Court found that the
Petitioner-in-person has failed to make out a case to compel
this Court to exercise its review jurisdiction.
15. A written note of submission has also been filed on
behalf of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties to the
review petition have referred to the provisions contained in
Section 114 of the C.P.C as well as Order-47 Rule-1 thereof.
On behalf of the Opposite Parties, it was contended that the
Petitioner-in-person has failed miserably to make out a case
justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its review
jurisdiction. It was specifically contended that a review
petition has a very limited scope and that same cannot be
allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. Furthermore, the
Petitioner cannot be permitted for re-adjudication of the issue
and to re-argue the question which has already been finally
adjudicated.
16. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Opposite Parties emphatically argued that whatever right
had accrued in favour of the Petitioner got extinguished by
order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 27.01.2011 passed by
SLP(C) No.14784 of 2008 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court
has set aside the order dated 02.05.2008. He further
submitted that after dismissal of the SLP, the filing of
subsequent writ application for the self-same relief is not
maintainable in law and, as such, no mandamus could have
been issued by this Court in the present case. In course of
argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties referred to the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v.
State Tax Officer(1) and Another, reported in (2024) 2 SCC
362, in the context of scope of review of this Court in a
review petition.
17. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal as well as
factual position, further applying the well settled principles
governing the exercise of power of review by this Court in a
review petition and further keeping in view the provisions
contained in Section 114 of C.P.C read with Order-47 Rule-1
of C.P.C, this Court is of the considered view that the
Petitioner in the present case has failed to make out a case for
exercise of the review jurisdiction by this Court. In such
view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the judgment sought to be reviewed in the present case.
18. However, while disposing of the present review
petition, this Court observes that the Opposite Parties shall do
well once again extend the offer that was made to the
Petitioner by the third party agency pursuant to the further
affidavit dated 24.09.2023. In the event any such offer is
made to the Petitioner, it is open to the Petitioner to either
accept or refuse such offer within a period of eight weeks
from the date such offer is extended by the Opposite Parties.
19. With the aforesaid observation, the review petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 22nd January, 2026/ Debasis Aech, Secretary
