The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1008 of 2025 Odisha Staff Selection Commission …. Appellant Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, Advocate -versus- Sabyasachi Mohanty and another …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Budhadev Routrary, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.11.2025 03. 1. The instant writ appeal arises from a judgment dated 7th March, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C) No.16314 of 2022, by which the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein was disposed of with the following directions:- the “In view of factual the aforesaid analysis of background of the present writ application as well as the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by not awarding the extra marks to the Petitioner as has been provided under Clause-11(b) of the advertisement under the writ Annexure-1. Resultantly, while allowing application, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to reassess the case of the Petitioner and to award the extra marks to which the Petitioner is entitled to on the basis of his experience certificates and on such basis the total marks obtained by the Petitioner be recalculated and accordingly the case of the Petitioner be considered for appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. Since, one post has been kept reserved by virtue of an interim Page 1 of 4 order passed earlier in the present writ application, it is needless to direct that the case of the Petitioner shall be considered for appointment against the said post, in the event the Petitioner is found eligible, after awarding the extra marks to the Petitioner as has been directed hereinabove.” 2. The issue involved in the writ petition pertains to correct evaluation of the answers given by the writ petitioner to Question No.2 of the computer practical test and the service rendered by him as a contractual employee under the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda shall be counted for the purpose of awarding extra marks. 3. While answering the issue pertaining to the correct evaluation of the answers given to the Question No.2, the Single Bench directed the answer scripts of the other candidates along with the writ petitioner to be produced before the Court to make a comparison as to whether the marks awarded to the other candidates for the similar and identical answers given by the writ petitioner was higher than the marks awarded to the writ petitioner. It is categorically observed by the Single Bench that if the answer scripts of other candidates, who gave the same answers, were evaluated by awarding ten marks, there is no rationale which could be perceived in awarding six marks to the writ petitioner. Ultimately, the Single Bench answered the said point in favour of the writ petitioner, but in the concluding part of the said judgment, a specific direction was passed upon the authorities to award the extra marks on the basis of the experience certificates and not on Question No.2. Though the meaningful reading of the entire judgment leaves no ambiguity in the mind that the Single Bench was of the firm view that the writ petitioner was awarded less Page 2 of 4 marks in Question No.2 in comparison to the other candidates, who answered in the similar manner that of the writ petitioner, the specific direction remained conspicuously absent. 3.1. According to the appellant, the direction, as it stands in the impugned judgment, does not render the writ petitioner eligible to be considered, as the last candidate who comes within the zone of appointment obtained two marks more than the writ petitioner and, therefore, if an extra one mark is awarded for such experience, he is still out of the zone of the consideration. We appreciate the concern shown by the appellant in raising difficulty in implementing the ultimate direction passed for considering the writ petitioner for appointment against the post if the writ petitioner secured lesser marks than the lowest appointed candidate. But we cannot overlook the fact that the Single Bench in unequivocal term held that the writ petitioner was awarded less marks in Question No.2 in comparison to other candidates, who answered in similar fashion and, therefore, the impugned judgment is to be modified to the extent that the appellant shall also award extra four marks to the writ petitioner in the Question No.2 and if he comes within the zone of consideration, it will implement the remaining part of the direction passed in the impugned judgment. 4. We, however, appreciate that in absence of any stipulation in the recruitment procedure for awarding extra one mark for each completed year of continuous service on contractual basis, it was not open to the Single Bench to award such extra mark. We appreciate the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, which is also not disputed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 that there is no justification Page 3 of 4 in awarding extra one mark for a period rendered by the writ petitioner in the Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda on contractual basis and, therefore, the portion of the impugned judgment, by which the Single Bench directed such one mark to be awarded on such category is hereby set aside and/or quashed. The entire exercise, as directed by the Single Bench shall be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Nov-2025 10:38:38 Page 4 of 4