p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.246 of 2025 An application under order LVII Rule- 1 of Civil procedure code, 1908 read with Chapter- VIII, Rule-23 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 --------------- Smruti Prangya Behera …… Petitioner - Versus – State of Odisha and Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case: - _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 22.05.2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Opp. Parties on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner of the present review petition seeks review of the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26991 of 2024 and analogous matters. 3. Bereft of unnecessary facts, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to advertisement dated 10.07.2024 issued by p. 2 the CDPO, Bhuban for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in different Anganwadi Centres including Jaypur-3 Anganwadi Centre, she had applied for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. According to her, though she had secured higher marks than Opposite Party No. 5, her candidature was illegally rejected by manipulating records relating to her residence within the centre service area. It is stated that upon her complaint, the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar cancelled the selection process by order dated 01.10.2024 directing fresh notification. Opposite Party No.5 thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.26991 of 2024 challenging the cancellation order dated 01.10.2024 and consequential fresh advertisement but intentionally did not implead her though she was a directly affected and necessary party to the case. According to the review petitioner, by suppressing material facts and by distorted presentation of facts, Opposite Party No.5 obtained the judgment dated 10.07.2025 whereby the cancellation order was quashed and Opposite Party No.5 was restored to engagement. 4. Mr. Panda, would argue that the petitioner being the most meritorious candidate having secured higher marks p. 3 than Opposite Party No.5, her candidature was illegally rejected on the basis of manipulated entries relating to her residence in the centre service area. He further submits that the cancellation order dated 01.10.2024 came to be passed on the basis of the complaint lodged by her and therefore she was directly affected by the judgement made in W.P.(C) No.26991 of 2024. He argues that Opposite Party No.5 intentionally did not implead her and thereby prevented this Court from considering the whole factual background relating to the irregularities in the selection process. According to him, the judgment dated 10.07.2025 proceeded on a wrong factual foundation by treating non-signing of the proceeding by the Sub-Collector as the sole basis of cancellation, whereas there existed several other allegations relating to manipulation of records and procedural irregularities. He therefore, submits that the judgment under review having been obtained by suppression of material facts and without hearing the affected party, warrants interference. 5. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, would argue that the review petition is not maintainable as the candidature of the present petitioner had been rejected during the selection process on p. 4 the ground that she did not belong to the service area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre and therefore she stands on a different footing than Opposite Party No.5. He further submits that the petitioner never challenged rejection of her candidature before the competent authority and therefore, cannot seek adjudication of this independent dispute in review jurisdiction. He also argues that the writ petition was confined to the challenge against cancellation of engagement of selected candidates (i.e. O.P no.-5 for Jayapur-3, AWC) and therefore, the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the said case. According to him, no error apparent on the face of the record has been made out warranting interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the judgment dated 10.07.2025 was delivered in a batch of writ petitions wherein the selected candidates had challenged cancellation of their engagement pursuant to order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar. p. 5 7. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions held that the cancellation order did not disclose any reason whatsoever and that the selected candidates could not be faulted merely because the Sub-Collector had not signed the proceeding, particularly when the comparative statement disclosed participation of the selection committee and endorsement of the Chairman therein. 8. The issue of the petitioner in the present review petition is that she was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition and several allegations relating to manipulation of records and illegal rejection of her candidature could not therefore be brought to the notice of this Court. However, this Court finds from the pleadings and documents available on record that the candidature of the petitioner had itself been rejected during the selection process on the ground that she was not residing within the concerned Anganwadi Centre area. Admittedly also, the petitioner had not independently challenged said rejection of her candidature before the competent authority in accordance with law except making a complaint before the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar p. 6 regarding her disqualification in the verification list and requesting enquiry into the same. 9. The disputes now raised by the petitioner relate to wrongful rejection of candidature, manipulation of records and procedural irregularities in the selection process which are factual in nature and not the subject matter of adjudication in the writ petitions decided by judgment dated 10.07.2025. 10. Merely because the petitioner claims to have lodged a complaint before the Sub- Collector, the same by itself would not render her a necessary party to the writ petition, particularly when no right in her favour existed on the date of disposal of the writ petitions. 11. It is well settled that the power of review is limited in nature and the same cannot be exercised as if the Court is sitting in appeal over its own judgment. Review jurisdiction can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, namely, when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the p. 7 judgment was delivered or for any other similar sufficient reason. A review proceeding cannot be converted into a rehearing of the original matter on merits nor can it be used for re-appreciation of evidence or re-agitation of disputed questions of fact already considered by the Court. In the present case, the petitioner mainly seeks adjudication of issues relating to alleged wrongful rejection of her candidature, manipulation of records and procedural irregularities in the selection process, all of which involve independent factual disputes requiring detailed examination. Such issues neither formed part of the dispute adjudicated in the writ petitions nor do they disclose any apparent error on the face of the judgment. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to grant indulgence to the petitioner seeking re- hearing of the matter. The review petition is hence, dismissed, not being admitted for hearing. ……………………….... Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 22nd May, 2026/Sr. Steno Designation: Sr. Stenographer