The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1296 of 2024 Odisha Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Advocate -versus- Rajat Kumar Pradhan and another …. Respondents Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA for Respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 30.04.2025 06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. From the submissions advanced by the respective counsels, the point involved in the instant writ appeal is hovering around the construction of the language used in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned common order passed by the Single Bench. Both the parties have interpreted and construed the language employed therein in different manner causing an uncertainty in the course of action in terms of the ultimate direction passed in the impugned order. 3. The initial dispute pertains to the leakage of the question papers and an access to it, which was unearthed and/or detected subsequently. The conscious decision was taken to scrap the entire recruitment process so as to avoid any benefit to be availed through an unscrupulous manner, but still the ball continued rolling in the Court as the appellant decided to initiate a proceeding against respondent Page 1 of 4 no.1 in the instant appeal and issued a show cause notice upon him. Though the reply to the show cause was given by respondent no.1 and others, but the challenge was made to the show cause notice by filing the writ petitions, which were taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 4. The Single Bench dissected the issues in two compartments, firstly, the persons involved in the leakage of the question papers and secondly, the persons who got an access to the leaked question papers. In pursuit of the same, certain observations were made in the impugned order which are understood by the parties in a different manner. 5. The appellant understood the purport and tenet of the observations made in paragraph-9 as sacrosanct leading to an absurdity and uncertainty in compliance with the ultimate directions passed by the Single Bench; on the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 submits that there is no confusion and/ or ambiguity in such findings at paragraphs-9 and 10 of the impugned order is to be read conjointly and conveys a laudable intention of the learned Judge who disposed of the said writ petition. 6. The appellant still insists that the observation made in paragraph-9 of the impugned order has foreclosed the doors of the allegation against the writ petitioner in relation to leakage of the question papers, as according to the Single Bench, the same is restricted only to an access to the leaked question papers. 7. Before we proceed to appreciate such submissions, it would be apposite and profitable to quote paragraphs-9 and 10 of the impugned order which runs thus. Page 2 of 4 “9. On a careful examination of the affidavit filed by the I.O., this Court is of the prima facie view that the Petitioners were party to the second part of occurrence. Therefore, it is also observed that they were not parties to the leakage of question paper which is the main allegation in the present writ applications. Moreover, the possibility of victimization of the Petitioners who were allured by the accused persons, with a prospect of receiving the leaked question papers in exchange of some amount of money cannot be ruled out. 10. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court permits the I.O. to continue with the investigation with a direction to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible by covering all angles of conspiracies. Further, this Court also directs the OSSC to finalize the proceeding initiated by issuing show cause notice to the Petitioners to which the Petitioners have already filed their reply. In the event, it is found that the Petitioners are in no way involved in the leakage of the question papers, then such proceeding be dropped and the results of the examination which was held on 03.09.2023 in respect of the present petitioners be the date of published within a six weeks communication of a copy of this order. Furthermore, in the event it is found that the Petitioners have come out successfully in the written examination and the proceeding against them are dropped as directed hereinabove, then the OSSC shall proceed in their matter for publication of their final result by taking the necessary and consequential steps to conclude the recruitment process in respect of those Petitioners. Consequently, if it is found that the Petitioners are finally selected, then the pendency of the criminal case shall not stand in the way of the Petitioners being considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).” from 8. The language used in the aforementioned paragraphs leaves no ambiguity that the Court refused to interfere with the show cause notice and directed the authorities to proceed in investigating such serious issues and in pursuit thereof, such observation came to be Page 3 of 4 made. Since there was a serious allegation of the leakage of the question papers and an access to the leaked question papers, the Single Bench observed that it does not appear prima facie case is made out for involvement in leakage of the question papers. Such observation is tentative in nature and cannot receive any sanctity being susceptible to non-interference at the investigation stage. The observation made by the Single Bench expressing the prima facie opinion is never regarded as final which would further be evident from the observations made in paragraph-10 of the impugned order wherein it is held that in the event the writ petitioners are found in no way involved in the leakage of the question papers, then the proceeding should be dropped. 9. In such view of the matter, since the finding on leakage of question papers and its involvement is still left open to the Investigating Officer, we do not find that such observation would create an absolute brindle and/or fetter on the part of the authorities in deciding the issues in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable in this regard. 10. We, thus, do not find any ambiguity far to speak of impossibility of reconciling the observation made in the impugned order and, therefore, the instant writ appeal is disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-May-2025 18:55:45 MRS/Laxmikant (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 4 of 4