Kishore Biswal vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 791 Ori

Orissa High Court

Kishore Biswal vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2026

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    RVWPET No. 83 of 2025

   Kishore Biswal                             ......           Petitioner

                             -versus-
1. Union of India, represented
   through its Secretary, Ministry of
   Communication & Information
   Technology, Government of India,
   New Delhi
2. Director General of Posts, Govt. of
   India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief Post Master General,
   Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,
   Khurda.
4. Manager, Postal Printing Press,
   O/o. the Chief Post Master
   General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar.
5. Joint Registrar, Central Administrative
   Tribunal, Cuttack, At-Rajaswa Bhawan,
   Chandinichowk.                         ......                   Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:
     For Petitioner           :       Mr. S. Behera, Advocate


    For Opposite Parties :              Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I.
                                        along with Ms. Sulochana Patra
                                        Central Government Counsel
CORAM:
          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     AND
      THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                              JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 30th January, 2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savitri Ratho, J This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner

seeking review of the Judgment dated. 21.01.2025 passed in

W.P(C) No. 30756 of 2024, whereby this Hon'ble Court dismissed

the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated

22.07.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench, in O.A. No. 260/00083 of 2020.

2. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 30756 of 2024

had been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated

22.07.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench, in O.A. No. 260/00083 of 2020, whereby the petitioner's

Original Application seeking quashing of his absorption in RMS

'N' Division and for a direction to absorb him as Postal Assistant

in the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar, had been dismissed.

3. Mr. S Behera , learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

that although the Opposite party No.4 had issued a notice on

04.01.2019 directing the employees of postal printing press,

Bhubaneswar to submit their option by 08.01.2019, but the

Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 even before the expiry of the said cut-

off date, issued an order dated 07.01.2019 directing eight

employees to be sent for training, thereby showing undue favour to

selected individuals. The petitioner had duly exercised his option

for absorption in the Circle Office, but no order was issued in his

favour. Opp. Party no.3 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the

ground that lack of adequate qualification and knowledge of

administrative work which has no substance to evaluate the

performance and it is the duty of the authority to communicate

such reason for the sake of principle of natural justice so that the

petitioner could improve his efficiency. He further submits that a

number of vacancies were available in the Circle office,

Bhubaneswar, but the petitioner has been absorbed at the RMS (N)

Division Cuttack which in indicative of the malafides on the part of

the Opp. Party no.3.

4. The principles governing exercise of the power of review

is no longer res integra. It is a well settled principle that the scope

of review is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when

there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of

new and important matter which could not be produced earlier

despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason analogous

to the other two reasons.

5. In a recent decision - Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna and

another: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Supreme Court has

reiterated the principles governing the power of review as under:-

"17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:

17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104) Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. (T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905 : AIR 1954 SC 440.) An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.

Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC

137.) 17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. (Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 : AIR 1954 SC

526."

6. This Court while dismissing the writ petition, after

hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has observed that

"posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the

employer to decide as to where a particular employee is to be

posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative

exigency and the employee has no vested right to get a posting at a

particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a

particular time and it is within the exclusive domain of the

employer to determine as to what place and for how long the

services of a particular employee are required and since this Court

has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the same unless it is shown

to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation

of statutory provision.". After noting down the case of the parties,

this Court found that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in not

accepting the prayer of the petitioner was quite justified.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able

to point out any error apparent on the face of record of the

judgment sought to be reviewed. It is also not his case that there

has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence,

which despite the exercise of due diligence was not within his

knowledge earlier, for which he could not produce it before this

Court. The grounds urged in the review petition are the same issues

which were raised before the learned Tribunal and in W.P.(C) No.

30756 of 2024 and considered.

8. Keeping the principles governing review jurisdiction in

mind and after going through the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 30756

of 2024 passed by this Court, the order passed by the learned

Tribunal in O.A. No. 260/00083 of 2020 and the grounds in the

review petition, we are not satisfied that any case is made out for

review of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.30756 of 2024.

9. The Review Petition being bereft of merit, stands

dismissed.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

The 30th January, 2026 // Sukanta

Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 04-Feb-2026 13:50:59