A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The Civil Review has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 9.4.2001 passed in O.J.C. No. 2968 of 2001.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 as petitioner had filed O.J.C. No. 2968 of 2001, inter alia, challenging the order dated 14.12.1995 by which the Government, though accorded approval to the post of lecturer in Oriya (4th post) at Choudwar College, Choudwar, declined to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner against the said post. According to the petitioner he was appointed as lecturer in Oriya in Choudwar College on 11.2.1987 and holding the said post continuously without any disruption w.e.f. 12.2.1987. The specific case of the petitioner was that as the State authorities adopted dilly dally tactics in cording approval to the appointment of the petitioners and other members of the college, he along with Shiva Narayan Rana, lecturer in Economics (opp. party No. 1), Prafulla Kumar Rout, lecturer in Commerce, Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, lecturer in Oriya and three other non-teaching staff of the college filed the writ application for issuance of mandamus to the State authorities to approve their appointment and disburse the grant-in-aid. The writ application was registered as O.J.C. No. 3079 of 1995. This Court by order dated 15.5.1995 disposed of the writ application wit a direction to the authorities to take a decision in terms of the recommendation of the Director, Higher Education, Orissa within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. After receiving the writ issued by the Court, the State Government constituted a High Power Committee consisting of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Law; Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education; Additional Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department and Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa; Law Department to scrutinise the grievances of the petitioner and several others, similarly placed. The said High Power Committee reviewed several cases and submitted a report to the State Government on 1st November, 1995 recommending to approve the post held by the petitioner as the same justified the work-load and student strength. The recommendation of the Committee though accepted by the Government and the post held by the petitioner (lecturer in Oriya, 4th post) was approved, approval to the appointment of the petitioner was not accorded, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court once again in O.J.C. No. 2968 of 2001.
3. In course of hearing of the writ application, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the recommendation of the Committee so far as other lecturers who were similarly placed as the petitioner, was approved by the Government, whereas the petitioner was discriminated. An unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Shiva Narayan Rana v. State of Orissa, O.J.C. No. 12556 of 1997, was brought to the notice of this Court wherein while dealing with a similar matter, this Court directed the concerned authorities to accord approval to the appointment of the lecturers whose cases were recommended by the High Power Committee and to disburse the grant-in-aid. Relying upon the said decision as well as the provisions of the Validation Act, 1998, this Court directed the opposite parties to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in Oriya (4th post) and to extend all benefits to him which his counter-parts were enjoying w.e.f. 1.6.1991, as per the recommendation of the High Power Committee. The said judgment, as stated earlier, is sought to be reviewed by the State.
4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the opp. parties, apart from reiterating all the submissions made by him in course of hearing of the writ application, submitted that a Civil Review filed by the State against the decision passed in O.J.C. No. 12556 of 1997 in an identical case was dismissed by this Court.
5. In order to appreciate the said submission it will be prudent to quote relevant portion of the order dated 13.12.2000 passed in O.J.C. No. 12556 of 1997 :
'In view of the recommendation of the High Power Committee which had taken all aspects into consideration, it was not open for the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Department of Higher Education to take a different view.'
Mr. Rath submitted that the Civil Review filed against the said order, being Civil Review No. 47 of 2001, on the self- same grounds, taken in the present case, was rejected by this Court by order dated 24.9.2001. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. CC 1860 of 2002 filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25.2.2002. According to Mr. Rath as the grounds on which the present order is sought to be reviewed were already tested by the Supreme Court, the present Civil Review is also liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. Learned counsel for the State supporting the Review Application submitted that as the service of opp. party No.l were validated in accordance with the Validation Act, 1998, he is not entitled to any salary prior to 17.10.1998 on which date the Validation Act, 1998 came into force and the judgment should be reviewed to the said extent.
7. Reading of the order dated 9.4.2001 would clearly reveal that this fact was kept in mind by the Court while disposing of the writ application. This Court specifically held that the High Power Committee constituted by the State examined the case of opp. party No. 1 as well as some others similarly placed, and after considering the pros and cons on 1.11.1995 found that opposite party No. 1 was appointed on 11.2.1987 against a post which was justified taking into consideration the students strength. His appointment was therefore to be approved from the said date and he was also entitled to the consequential benefits. The recommendation of the Committee was made as back as on 1.11.1995 whereas the Validation Act came into force in the year 1998. Thus the State Government which constituted the High Power Committee, sat upon the recommendation for a period of three years for no justifiable reason.
8. . This Court in several cases and also in O.J.C. No. 12556 of 1997 directed the State Government to implement the recommendation of the High Power Committee. The said order has attained finality in S.L.P. (Civil) No.CC 1860 of 2002.
9. Even otherwise as would be evident from the narration of facts, the authorities accepted the recommendation of the High Power Committee and extended benefits similar to that claimed by the petitioner to several others including the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 12556 of 1997 denying the same benefit to the opposite party No. 1 not only violates the principles of natural justice and equity, but also the action of the State suffers from the vice of discrimination.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, I am satisfied that none of the ingredients for reviewing an order as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp.(4) SCC 595, which decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Bhatta v. Nehru Paribesh Surakshya Committee*, 94 (2002) CLT 337 being :
'(1) If the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record in the sense that it is evident on a mere looking at the record without any long- drawn process of reasoning, a review application is maintainable.
(2) If there is a serious irregularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained, and
(3) If a mistake is committed by an erroneous assumption of a fact which if allowed to stand would cause miscarriage of justice, then also an application for review can be entertained.'
are satisfied in the present case. The State authorities after losing in the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. CC 1860 of 2002 and after granting similar benefits as claimed by the opp. party No. 1 to many others similarly placed, being an ideal employer should, according to me, grant the benefits which opposite party No. 1 is otherwise entitled to even according to the recommendation of the High Power Committee and should not adopt dilatory attitude. I, therefore, have no hesitation to dismiss the Civil Review with a cost of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred).