JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
The facts of the case are that previously, the Respondents had joined together and filed an original petition for being declared as the owners over the land under their possession and for correction of the Record of Rights. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiffs were the owners of the property and thereby directed the Settlement Authority to correct the record of rights. Aggrieved, G.A. Department filed an appeal which was dismissed due to being barred by limitation. They then filed Civil Revision but it was also rejected as the delay was not explained. They then filed an SLP before the Supreme Court which was allowed subject to costs. The matter again entered into another SLP due to delay in cost but the Supreme Court restored the Title Appeal. Being aggrieved by the judgement of ADJ in Title Appeal in remanding suit, the Plaintiffs preferred Miscellaneous Appeal holding that the lower Appellate body had illegally reopened the suit, which was allowed by the High Court in which they also passed a judgement declaring the judgement and decree in suit became valid via judgement dated 27.06.2012. This was challenged by the review petition by Plaintiff.The Opponents argued that the plea was hit by the provision of the Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
The Court while relying on the case of Gulam Abbas & Ors. v. Mulla Abdul Kadar, (1970) 3 SCC 643, observed that documents surfaced in the process of the litigation materially affecting the result of the suit would be an error apparent on the face of record and there was no doubt that the case was clearly maintainable under Order 47 of C.P.C and the State / Petitioner was able to make out a case for review.
The Court noted that the Original Suit was filed in clear suppression of the fact that the owner of the land had handed over the property after receipt of compensation. Hence, the Court held that the original land acquisition award involving the very same land, payment of full compensation and preparation of abatement statement cannot all be lost sight of, wherein they clearly bring the present review application within the fold of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The review succeeded and the Court set aside the judgment dated 27.06.2012 and decree in miscellaneous appeal, thereby confirming judgement involving Title Appeal.
In this case, the Petitioner was a diploma holder and had subsequently completed his B. Tech (Civil) through distance mode from JRN Vidyapitha ‘Deemed University’. He was also working under Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. The issue was of reversion from the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) to the cadre of Jr. Engineer (Civil). Ad hoc engineers had filed a writ claiming regular appointments as Asst. Engineer(civil), which was disposed with Court directing that Corporation shall de novo consider the cases of the Graduate Engineers. The Corporation implemented the direction of the High Court appointing petitioners as Asst. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis. The Supreme Court in the SLP filed by Corporation gave sympathetic consideration to the degree holders through JRN Vidyapitha and decided that they had to qualify in a test which was to be conducted under the guidance of AIIT and UGC to validate their degrees.Thereafter, the Corporation reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer, vide order dated 22.3.2018. The writ is this case, involved the challenge to the order.
There was no objection to the claim that the Petitioner had applied and registered himself to appear in the first test, but never appeared for it, and had cleared the 2nd test that was
Hence, the Court held that since as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in (2018) 1 SCC 468, candidates were to gain benefit of their degree on passing the test, and the petitioner had passed through the 2nd test, he had validated his degree therein, holding that the Corporation was duty bound to restore the position of the petitioner to Asst. Engineer (Civil) and release all benefits that was entitled to the petitioner.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the appellate order that had been passed after a remand order of the High Court itself in disposal of O.J.C. No.8032 of 1999, where the petitioner had assailed the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority. In the remand appeal, the Appellate Authority had passed a fresh order, of which the punishment awarded at Clause 7(c) of the impugned order stated that the petitioner would not be entitled for any pay and allowances in the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to his reinstatement into service. This was challenged on the ground that there was no provision for imposing such punishment in the service rule. The Respondent, on the other hand, had objected on whether the appeal could be entertained on the premises of a statutory revision being available to the petitioner against the appeal order, and further argued that the punishment was justified due to the clear disclosure regarding admission of guilt by the petitioner in the appeal order.
The Court considered the specific prescription of punishment prescribed under Rule 27 of the Central Reserves Police Force Act, 1955, and found that there was indeed no prescription of such punishment under Clause 7 (c) of the impugned order. As regards maintainability, the Court noted that since the incident took place in 1999, whereafter there had also been a significant loss of time, raising the question of maintainability at the final hearing of the writ petition could not be permitted. In light of the above, the Court declared the punishment in the impugned clause to be sustainable in the eye of law.