STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BENUDHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two review petitions are directed against the order dated 30.7.2003 passed by this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No. 6780 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 6781 of 2003.

(2.) BOTH the above writ applications were filed by the State of Orissa against the judgment delivered by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 83 of 2001 and O.A. No. 286 of 2001. The aforesaid two Original Applications were disposed of by a common order giving rise to the aforesaid two writ applications at the instance of the State. From the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, it appears that the applicants therein (opposite parties in both the writ applications) filed the Original Applications praying for quashing the select list prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission and also for a direction to the State authorities to promote them, with effect from the date the respondents 3 to 10 therein were promoted with consequential benefits. It further appears that the dispute related to placement in the select list as well as for promotion from amongst the officers working as O.A.S. Class I (Sr. Branch). When the above two writ applications filed by the State were taken up for admission, the Court found that the State is not the aggrieved party and it was not necessary on the part of the State to expouse cause of a particular officer or group of officers and same should have been left to the parties to the proceeding to file their cases before the appropriate Court. Keeping the above in mind, both the writ applications were dismissed at the stage of admission. It will not be out of place to state that when the writ applications were taken up for admission, seven officers who were not parties to both the writ applications had filed an application for intervention. It further appears that after dismissal of the writ applications at the stage of admission, applications were filed in both the cases for recalling the order dated 30.7.2003 and pending disposal of the aforesaid two applications the present review petitions have been filed.

(3.) AFTER disposal of both the writ applications, it appears that the opposite party No. 1 has filed a petition for implementation of the judgment of the Tribunal through counsel. In W.P,(C) No. 6780 of 2003 the opposite party No. 2 has also filed similar application. Learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid opposite parties in the aforesaid two writ applications opposed the stand taken by the State in the review petitions and it was submitted that the scope of review is very limited and grounds on which review is sought for is unknown to law. In support of their contention, learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid opposite parties have referred to some decisions. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal and Anr. v. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 594. The Apex Court in Para 25 of the judgment of the aforesaid decision observed as follows ;