The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2418 of 2024 Soumya Ranjan Dash …. Petitioner Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate with Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Advocate for OSSC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.08.2025 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under such circumstance it is therefore prayed that your lordship’s would graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for records and after hearing the parties may be pleased to issue a writ/s, order/s, direction/s the nature of mandamus directing the authority to make an enquiry on his allegation pertaining to tampering of his answer sheets of main written test held on dt.19.05.2018 & 20.05.2018 and the marks given therein obtained under RTI Act, within a stipulated period as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. in And further may direct the opp. Parties to give him appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector of police under the Home Department, Govt. of Odisha as per // 2 // advertisement the forthwith preferably within a stipulated period as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” dt.04.09.2015 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 04.09.2015, petitioner participated in the Combined Police Service Examination, 2015. But he was not selected because of wrong award of marks in the written examination conducted by the Commission. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently when petitioner applied for providing him with the copy of the answer sheet and the OMR sheet under the RTI, the same were provided to the petitioner on 13.12.2023 under Annexure-3. After going through the documents provided under the RTI, petitioner found that various pages in the answer sheet are missing in the information so provided in Paper-1 and Paper-2. 4.2. It is also contended that petitioner was not awarded with the marks even though he gave the correct answer, so found from the OMR sheet provided to the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since while providing the answer sheet and OMR sheet under the RTI, some pages were not provided to him, it amounts to manipulation on the part of the Commission and in order to disqualify the petitioner, such a step was taken. It is also contended that petitioner’s mark was also manipulated vis-(cid:224)-vis the marks awarded to the questions in the answer sheet. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.3. Making all these submissions, it is contended that necessary direction be issued to the Commission to award proper mark to the petitioner and accordingly select him for the post in question. 5. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand to the stand taken by the petitioner that he was not provided with all the pages of Paper-1 and Paper-2 in the CPSC (Main), 2015, produced the original answer sheet of Paper-I and Paper-II and the OMR sheet before this Court for verification. On such verification, it was found that all the pages in Paper-1 and Paper-2 are available and properly marked. From the OMR sheet so produced in original, it was found that in some of the answer containing column A to D, there are holes in a particular column. 5.1. It is contended that petitioner after giving the wrong answer to the question and to avoid the same made the hole and thereafter give another answer, which is not permissible. It is also contended that the selection process has since been completed, petitioner is not eligible to get any benefit. 5.2. It is also contended that while providing the information under RTI, all the pages in Paper-II were provided to the petitioner and in order to misled this Court, some of the pages were not photocopied Page 3 of 5 // 4 // intentionally and deliberately while annexing the documents vide Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand and he has not annexed the document so provided to him under RTI, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any relief. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Commission, when this Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the original of the RTI information provided to the petitioner by the Commission, the same was provided to the Court for verification. On verification of the original so produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was found that while providing the information under the RTI, all the pages in Paper-1 and 2 have been provided to the petitioner. But petitioner knowingly has not produced all the pages in order to make false allegation against the Commission. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, since the petitioner while filing the Writ Petition has intentionally and deliberately not enclosed the relevant documents provided to him under RTI and petitioner intentionally and deliberately did not file some of the pages, it is the view of this Court that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hand. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 7.1. In that view of the matter and since petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Not only that the selection being of the year 2015 and petitioner only made the application to get the documents under the RTI in 2023, it is also the view that the claim made by the petitioner is time barred. Since the selection process has already been completed in the meantime, this Court is also not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Aug-2025 11:14:37 Page 5 of 5