Review Is Not a Second Round of Litigation: Orissa High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Reconsideration of Dropped Contempt in MCL Appointment Case

“A review is not an appeal in disguise, nor a license to relitigate settled disputes merely cloaked in dissatisfaction,” observed the Orissa High Court while rejecting a review petition challenging its earlier order dropping contempt proceedings related to a long-standing employment dispute with Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL).

In a significant ruling Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra of the Orissa High Court dismissed Review Petition seeking reconsideration of the Court’s prior order dated 23.02.2024 in CONTC No. 3931 of 2023. That contempt petition, arising from alleged non-compliance of directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 10786 of 2022, had been previously disposed of after the Court found no deliberate or wilful disobedience on part of MCL.

While disposing of the review plea, the Court remarked: “Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning or conclusions of a Court cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; what is sought to be reopened here is an issue already litigated threadbare.”

“Emotions Cannot Override Finality of Law”: No Enforceable Right to Appointment, Court Reiterates

The petitioner had initially approached the Court claiming a right to be appointed as an Electrician (CAT-III) in MCL based on a select list of 1996. Although the High Court, in its order dated 24.02.2023, had directed MCL to consider his case for contractual engagement, it had also cautioned that such direction created no enforceable legal right.

When MCL later facilitated an offer for engagement through a contractor, the petitioner rejected the same, terming it non-compliant with the Court’s order and alleging contempt.

However, the High Court in its contempt ruling had found that: “There is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of this Court’s order. The arrangement made through a third-party contractor cannot be said to violate the direction, especially when MCL has no provision for appointment of Electricians on contractual basis.”

In the present review proceedings, the Court sternly rejected the petitioner’s attempt to reopen these issues. It noted: “Whatever right had accrued in favour of the petitioner was extinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 27.01.2011 in SLP(C) No. 14784 of 2008, which had set aside the earlier favourable direction. Any subsequent claim based on that list stands legally nullified.”

“Litigation Fatigue Cannot Be Justification for Endless Rounds”: Petitioner’s 30-Year Legal Battle Ends in Closure

Justice Mohapatra drew attention to the “chequered litigation history” of the petitioner, who had been seeking employment since 1996 and had initiated multiple proceedings over three decades. The Court observed:

“This litigation is driven more by anxiety and sentiment than enforceable legal rights. The claim has no legal foundation after the Supreme Court’s final order.”

Referring to the established scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Court emphasized that: “Review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It can only be exercised where there is discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. None of these are present here.”

The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2024) 2 SCC 362, which reaffirmed that review petitions cannot be used to reargue the case or revisit settled conclusions.

“Court May Suggest, But Cannot Create a Right”: Fresh Offer via Contractor Open, Not Enforceable

While declining to interfere with its previous order, the Court made an equitable observation, stating that MCL may once again extend the prior offer made through the third-party contractor (Mahalaxmi Saakar JV). The Court clarified:

“In the event such an offer is made, it is open to the petitioner to either accept or refuse the same within eight weeks. However, such observation does not create any enforceable legal entitlement.”

This clarification aligns with the Court’s earlier stand that its direction for “consideration” does not translate into a mandamus to appoint, especially when organizational rules do not provide for contractual Electrician appointments.

Review Petition Dismissed, No Interference with Earlier Order Dropping Contempt

Summarizing its findings, the High Court concluded: “The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. No new facts have emerged. This review petition is nothing more than a veiled attempt to reopen a closed chapter.”

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed, and the order dated 23.02.2024 in CONTC No. 3931 of 2023 was upheld in full.

The Court also clarified that any renewed engagement offer by MCL’s contractor must be responded to by the petitioner within eight weeks if made.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026