MRUTYUNJAY BARIK Vs. COLLECTOR,BALASORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant review petition has been filed by the opposite party no.4 of the writ petition for review of the order dated 12.1.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011.

(2.) Review of the said order has been sought on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity to address his case at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, as also on the ground that the Collector has passed some observation in favour of the petitioner. The review has also been sought for on the basis of the order passed in the case of Jogendra Behera vs- State of Orissa and others, (2014) 2 OrissaLR 810 and in the case of Budhiram Ho vs- State of Orissa and others, (2014) 2 OrissaLR 1018.

(3.) Before going into the merit of the instant writ petition, it would be relevant for this Court to state some factual aspect as per the pleadings made in the writ petition as has been referred in the order to be reviewed. The review petitioner was the opposite party no.4 in the writ petition against whom the writ petitioner/private opposite party no.4 has filed writ petition assailing his appointment which according to him was engaged by producing forged certificate of Upasashtri and to that effect the Collector has directed for instituting F.I.R. for investigation under sections 417, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, prior to institution of W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011 he has filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.2012 directing the authority to take decision on the representation if preferred by the petitioner and accordingly the Collector has taken decision vide order dated 9.6.2011, came to finding that the opposite party no.4(review petitioner) has suppressed material facts and fraudulently obtained certificate based upon which he was engaged, accordingly FIR has been instituted but even after coming to the prima facie</i> opinion of commission of fraud by the review petitioner, he has been allowed to continue in service, being aggrieved, this W.P.(C) No.24392 of 2011 has been filed.