p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.167 of 2026 Chakradhar Sahoo …. Appellant (In person) -versus- Tata Power Central Orissa Distribution Ltd. (TPCODL), Bhubaneswar and another …. Respondents Mr. Pranaya Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 30.03.2026 02. 1. The appellant, beseeching indulgence in order dated 17.10.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No.21578 of 2022 and order dated 10.11.2025 passed in Review Petition bearing RVWPET No.49 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, has filed this intra-Court Appeal. 2. The background facts leading to filing of this intra-Court Appeal commenced in the year, 2008, when the appellant was not selected to the post of Divisional Accountant in connection with 3rd D.T. Examination conducted by the Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa (CESU) [presently, Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited (“TPCODL”)] in April, 2008. 2.1. A challenge was laid to the decision of the authority before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 which came to be dismissed on 12.10.2017 by the learned Single Bench of this Court with the following observations: p. 2 “Hence, the authorities after being found that the petitioner has not secured qualifying marks in English Paper-1, hence he has been declared fail, in consequence thereof, he has not been found to be suitable to be promoted in the 3rd D.T. Examination, which is after all the scrutiny of the candidate for promotion in the selection post.” 2.2. A review petition, being RVWPET No.241 of 2017, against the said order of dismissal suffered the same consequence vide judgment dated 04.04.2018. 2.3. A Writ Appeal, being W.A. No.220 of 2018, was preferred challenging the order dated 12.10.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 12.02.2019. A Division Bench upon hearing, observed thus: “4. The petitioner-appellant made his submission before this Court appearing in person and his sole contention before us was that he has been illegally declared fail only because his English Paper-I was evaluated by one of his authorities being an Engineer and hence, his answer paper should be examined by any other competent person or may be verified by this Court, which would make it evident that he has been intentionally given with less mark on some personal grounds. Out of maximum mark of 150 in English Paper-1, minimum mark required for passing was 60 and the petitioner secured 52 marks for which he was declared fail. The petitioner had alleged in his writ petition that his answer paper was not evaluated properly at the behest and dictates of C.G.M. (H.R & A) with whom he had some personal animosity. He pleaded that since he had made certain allegations of irregularities against the said Officer, at his behest, his answer paper in English Paper-I was not properly evaluated. Hence, it contended by the petitioner- appellant in person that his answer paper should be called for by the Court and should be properly evaluated. The petitioner also went on to give the p. 3 instances in which he had made the allegations against the C.G.M.(H.R & A). As it appears from his own pleadings in the writ petition on his representation for revaluation. the AGM (Finance) in his letter dated 27.11.2008 had informed the petitioner that the marks secured by him in English Paper-1 has been verified and found correct. It further appears from his pleadings that excepting bald averments regarding the allegations against the C.C.M (H.R & A), no material was brought on record on behalf of the petitioner in support of his contention that his answer paper was wrongly evaluated at the behest of the said Officer. The learned Single Judge has quoted the details furnished on behalf of the opposite party regarding the qualifying mark and has observed that since the petitioner did not obtain qualifying mark in English Paper-1, he has been rightly declared fail. 5. So far as the submissions to call for the answer paper and to examine it or to put it for revaluation, such a practice has been repeatedly deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR, 1984, SC 1543 (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. etc.,) that: ‘the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day today working of educational institution and the controlling them.’ It was further observed that if inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite p. 4 uncertainty, in the instant case the evaluation has been conducted by an internal process followed by the competent authorities and as stated earlier, except some bald averments alleging against the senior authorities of the appellant, we do not find any convincing material to have even a presumption that any partiality was made towards the petitioner-appellant. It has been the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the principle of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd length so as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination, should be allowed to participate in the process of the evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners. 7. In the given circumstances, we do not find any merit to accede to the contention made by the petitioner- appellant that his answer paper should be called for and reevaluated.” 2.4. Against the said judgment dated 12.02.2019, a review petition, being RVWPET No.49 of 2019, filed, the Division Bench vide judgment dated 24.11.2021 having found no merit dismissed the same. 3. A second journey commenced. The present appellant seeking fresh evaluation of answer sheet (English) in connection with 3rd D.T. Examination, CESU held during April, 2008 filed subsequent writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2022, which came to be dismissed on 17.10.2022 with the following order: “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. p. 5 2. Petitioner, after making some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. To that effect, a memo dated 17.10.2022 has been filed. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 3.1. Though the writ petition was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file fresh, against the said order of dismissal upon withdrawal, an Appeal, being W.A.No.1737 of 2022, was preferred which came to be dismissed on 15.01.2025 with the following observation: “4. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has stated that according to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, arguments were made and permission was granted to withdraw the case, but no such argument was made as there was no one present for the opposite parties and, therefore, question of argument does not arise. He has further asserted that the learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to withdraw the case otherwise penalty would be imposed upon him. 5. The ground which has been taken in the present intra- court appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is not at all sustainable. 6. We are of the view that the averments made in the present intra-court appeal are contumacious. 7. The writ appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the order, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal.” 3.2. With such liberty to file review, the appellant filed a review petition being RVWPET No.49 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2025 with the following: p. 6 “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. C. Sahoo, Petitioner in person and Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 1. 3. Perused the office note. 4. Since notice has been duly served on Opp. Party No.2, notice against the said Opp. Party is treated as sufficient. 5. Petitioner appeared in person and contended that the present Review has been filed in terms of order dt. 15.01.2025 so passed in W.A. No.1737 of 2022. 6. It is contended that Petitioner since on compelling circumstances was asked to withdraw the Writ Petition and accordingly a memo was filed with disposal of the Writ Petition vide order dt. 17.10.2022, against the said order, the Writ Appeal was field. The Writ Appellate Court in W.A. No.1737 of 2022 while dismissing the appeal granted liberty to the Petitioner to seek review of the order. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 1 on the other hand contended that in course of hearing of the matter on 17.10.2022, the Review Petitioner suo moto filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the Writ Petition and accordingly the matter was dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the memo available in the writ petition, it is found that such a memo was filed by the Petitioner who was appeared in the matter in person on 17.10.2022 and under no compelling circumstances such a memo was filed as pleaded in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to review order dt. 17.10.2022. 9. The Review Petition according stands dismissed.” p. 7 3.3. After dismissal of the said Review Petition, the petitioner has come up before this Court in the present Writ Appeal. 4. Heard the Appellant-Mr. Chakradhar Sahoo, who appeared in person and Mr. Pranaya Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-CESU. 5. With the narration of the checkered career of the case, it is pertinent to mention that after having withdrawn the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2022 on 17.10.2022 by filing a memo to the effect that “the petitioner does not want to proceed with the aforesaid writ application and may be permitted to withdraw the writ application”, the Writ Appeal, being W.A.No.1737 of 2022 vide order dated 15.01.2022 has rightly been dismissed. Upon dismissal of writ appeal (W.A. No.220 of 2018) against order dated 12.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 and review petition being RVWPET No.49 of 2019 being dismissed against the judgment dated 12.02.2019 in said writ petition, the decision attained finality as the same remained unchallenged before the higher Court. 5.1. It is trite that once the proceeding is withdrawn without grant of liberty to file afresh on the self-same cause of action, it creates an estoppel into the litigation to reopen the issues emanated in the prior instituted writ petition. [See, Marion Bibi Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.24817 of 2025 disposed of vide Order dated 14.10.2025 of this Court.] 5.2. In the case of State of Orissa and another Vrs. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 10 SCR 1049, the question as to whether after withdrawal of a suit seeking the same relief without having permission to institute fresh one for the self-same relief, the p. 8 writ petition would be maintainable before the Court, has been answered in the negatived. In the said case, it is held as follows: “37. On the question, as to whether after the withdrawal of a suit claiming the same relief without having permission to institute fresh one for the same relief, a writ petition will be maintainable before the Court, the guidance is available from the judgment of this Court in M.J. Exporters Private Limited v. Union of India and others (2021) 13 SCC 543, wherein the principle of constructive res judicata was applied. The case concerns a litigant who sought to file a fresh writ petition after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed for the same relief without permission to file fresh one. The Court held that the principles contained in Order 23, Rule 1 CPC are applicable even in writ proceedings. Para 15 thereof is extracted below: ‘15. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was raised and abandoned in the first writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn, the principles of constructive res judicata which are laid down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and which principles are extendable to writ proceedings as well as held by this in Sarguja Transport Service Vrs. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5.” 38. Having regard to the principles laid down in M.J. Exporters Private Limited (supra), in our view, applying the principles of constructive res judicata, the present writ petition filed by the respondents after withdrawal of the civil suit, was not maintainable, in the sense that it ought not to have been entertained. In case the respondents still wanted to justify filing of the writ petition, they should have at least disclosed complete facts and then justify filing of the writ petition.” p. 9 5.3. It may not be out of place to have regard to principle underlying in Order XLVII, Rule 71 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908. The review petition, being RVWPET No.49 of 2025, has been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2025 by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, on the principle enshrined in Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of the Court rejecting the review petition is not amenable to be appealed. 5.4. It is further noticed from the cause title of W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2022, that in said writ petition, the petitioner sought for “fresh evaluation of answer-sheet (English) in connection with 3rd D.T. Examination of CESU held during April, 2008”. Such claim of relief and the factual position attained finality in the earlier round of litigation. Perusal of judgment dated 12.10.2017 of the learned Single Bench rendered in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 it is unequivocally manifest that the subject- matter of W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2022 is the same. The said judgment in W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 having got affirmed in Appeal bearing W.A. No.220 of 2018 vide judgment dated 12.02.2019, the findings and observations of the learned Single Judge merged with the Division Bench Judgment. The said findings and observations being not varied or set aside by any Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands thus: “7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application.— (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. (2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same. (3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.” p. 10 higher Court, there is no scope for revisiting such finding and observation made in earlier round of litigation. 6. In the wake of above, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Appeal which is directed against the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2022 and order dated 10.11.2025 passed in RVWPET No.49 of 2025. 7. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Designation: Secretary