P.K. Misra, J.
1. This review application is directed against the decision dated 27.3.1995 in O.J.C. No. 457 of 1995.
2. In the month of April, 1994, an advertisement had been published to fill up the post of Dean of Extension Education in the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (in short, the 'OUAT'). The present petitioner was one of the candidates. The Selection Committee had found the petitioner suitable and recommended that the petitioner should be appointed as the Dean. However, before issuance of any order of appointment, the Chancellor intervened in the matter and directed for reconstitution of the Selection Committee and fresh selection Decided on 31st March, 1999. for the post of Dean of Extension Education. Pursuant to the said decision of the Chancellor, a re-advertisement was directed to be made. At that stage, the present petitioner filed OJC No. 457 of 1995. In the said writ application, the University took the stand that a new Selection Committee had been constituted to reconsider the question of filling up the post of Dean of Extension Education on the basis of the decision taken by the Chancellor. The said writ application was disposed of by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble G.B. Putnaik and Hon'ble D.M. Patnaik, JJ, by order dated 17.3.1995. It was observed in the said decision :
'........On examining the file as well as the order of the Chancellor dated 11.1.1995, we are not in a position to come to the conclusion that the Chancellor has taken the decision arbitrarily. On the other hand, the Chancellor has considered all the relevant papers and because of the infirmities pointed out, he has not been able to accept the recommendation of the Committee. On going through the order of the Chancellor, we are satisfied that the Chancellor has passed the order on germane consideration and, therefore, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned decision of the Chancellor.......'
After disposal of the writ application, the present review application has been filed. Apart from taking other points relating to merit of the writ application which had been disposed of, the petitioner has taken a specific ground in the review application that the question relating to authority of the Chancellor in passing the earlier order has not at all been examined by the High Court and as such there was a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has also contended that no reason was available in the file justifying the conclusion of the Chancellor to have a fresh selection through a newly constituted Selection Committee.
3. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the counsel for the Chancellor has again produced the file containing the decision of the Chancellor. On perusal of the file, we are of the view that the reason given by the Chancellor for directing fresh selection by a newly constituted Selection Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is apparent that this Court on the earlier occasion accepted the views of the Chancellor as reflected in the file to be reasonable. It cannot be said that this Court on earlier occasion had committed any error of law or even factual error in observing that the decision of the Chancellor was based on relevant considerations.
4. The petitioner has specifically challenged the authority of the Chancellor to direct reconsideration of the matter on earlier occasion. The learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor has pointed out that as per the provisions contained in Section 6(2) of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act (Orissa Act 17 of 1965), which was amended in 1983, the Chancellor is the authority to appoint the officials of the University. In respect of officers of the University enumerated in Clauses (ii) to (xi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 the Dean of Extension Education is enumerated in Clause (ix) -, obviously the Chancellor is the appointing authority, As appointing authority, the Chancellor had every jurisdiction to examine as to whether a Selection Committee had been properly constituted and as to whether a selection had been properly made or not. It is, of course, true that the Chancellor is not authorised to take any decision arbitrarily or whimsically. As already indicated, this Court while deciding the matter on earlier occasion had perused the relevant file and had come to a conclusion that there was no arbitrariness in the decision of the Chancellor. After going through the relevant file which had again been placed, we do not think it is a fit case where it can be said that the earlier decision of this Court was vitiated by any error of law or fact apparent on the face of record.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this review application which is accordingly dismissed. There will, however. be no order as to costs.
D.M. Patnaik
I agree.