p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.472 of 2023 Anita Mohapatra …. Petitioner Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate for O.P. No.4 Mr. S. S. Rao, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 20.02.2026 07. 1. The instant review application is directed against the judgment dated 29th September, 2023 delivered in several writ appeals taken up together where it was categorically observed that if the names of any of the appellants, except the review petitioner find place in the revised merit list, his/her seniority will be determined in terms of the direction given by the learned Single Judge. The judgment is challenged on the premise that by virtue of an interim order dated 2nd November, 2022 passed in connection with W.A. No.1255 of 2022, the petitioner was given an intimation vide letter dated 23rd November, 2022 for p. 2 Computer Practical Skill Test for which the judgment so far as she is concerned is liable for review. While passing the judgment, the Collector and the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur was directed to open the revised merit list as prepared by the selection committee meeting held on 16th November, 2022 and 12th December 2022 against 10 vacancies following the reservation rules. 2. According to the review petitioner, once she was allowed to sit in the Computer Practical Skill Test in terms of the interim order passed in one of such writ appeals, she could not have been excluded from the purview of the ultimate directions passed in the said judgment. Learned counsel for the review petitioner vociferously submits that the Court cannot ignore the interim order passed in the appeal at the time of the final judgment and exclusion of the review petitioner from the merit list, which was submitted in pursuance of the interim order where her name finds place, invites the review of the said judgment in relation to the review petitioner. 3. The first and foremost point involved in the instant review application is whether the judgment impugned herein, suffers from the vice of the errors apparent on the face of the record. We are conscious of the provisions contained under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC p. 3 encompassing the grounds of the review and there is no gainsaying that the review jurisdiction can be exercised on three grounds—firstly, the order or the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record; secondly, discovery of new and important material, which despite due diligence was not within the knowledge of the counsel and thirdly, on other substantial reasons akin to the first two grounds. 4. So far as the third ground is concerned, the catena of decisions would indicate that it cannot stand in isolation to the other two grounds but must be read in conjunction therewith. The petitioner has not made out any case of discovery of new and important material or document, which was not in her knowledge despite due diligence but appears to have been founded upon the first ground, viz., the errors apparent on the face of the record. There is no cavil of doubt in our mind that there is a real, apparent and stark distinction between a judgment and order, which can be termed as an erroneous and the judgment and order which suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In the former case, it is open to the aggrieved person to move the higher Court but the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked in this regard. The “error apparent on the face of the record” has come up for p. 4 discussion in plethora of judgments and all the judgments are in unison on the point that such error must be patent on the face of the record and does not include an error, which has to be found out by a long drawn reasoning or by roving around the voluminous documents. It also does not imbibe within its folds such errors, which are to be deduced from a logical inference but the error must be of such magnitude that on a bare look of the record, the error can be reasonably ascertained. In recent times, the review applications are frequently filed inviting the Court to re-hear the matter on merit. The review jurisdiction cannot be stretched too far to permit the parties to re-argue the matter, nor does it permit the Court to re-visit its own order and re-write the same in a different get up. 6. The review jurisdiction is exercised within the limited compass, more particularly, based upon the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit; meaning thereby, the act of the Court shall not prejudice any litigant. It is the duty of the Court to correct the mistake or the error apparent on the face of the record, but the same cannot be permitted to be misused by inviting the Court to go deep into the complexities of the issues and hovering around the voluminous documents. p. 5 7. Such being the broad principles of review jurisdiction, we find that there is a clear finding recorded in the impugned order as to why the review petitioner has been excluded from the purview of the entire exercise. Such finding cannot be said to be a perverse as it is based upon the materials and/or pleadings vividly recorded therein and, therefore, we do not find that the order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the review jurisdiction. 8. The review application, thus, fails and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge M. Panda Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Reason: Authentication of Orissa, Cuttack 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified