The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) NO. 15086 OF 2025, AND WP(C) NO. 16409 OF 2025 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- In WPC No. 15086 of 2025 Phiroj Kumar Mahapatra & Anr. ..… Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. .…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners: M/s B.B. Mohanty with G.R. Sethi, Advocates For Opp. Parties: Mr. J.K. Ray, Addl. Standing Counsel [OP No.1] Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, Advocate [OP No.2] M/s. S. Swain, A.P. Bose & D.K. Sethy, Advocates [Intending Interveners] M/s. K.K. Swain, P.N. Mohanty, S.C.D. Dash, U.C. Chhotray, P.K. Mohapatra, K. Swain, J.R. Khuntia & A. Mishra, Advocates [Intending Interveners] ____________________________________________________________ In WP(C) No. 16409 OF 2025 Rakesh Kumar Barick & Anr. ...… Petitioners Page 1 of 15 -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. .…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. J.K. Ray, Addl. Standing Counsel [OP No.1] Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, Advocate [OP Nos.2 & 3] M/s. S. Swain, A.P. Bose & D.K. Sethy, Advocates [Intending Interveners] M/s. K.K. Swain, P.N. Mohanty, S.C.D. Dash, U.C. Chhotray, P.K. Mohapatra, K. Swain, J.R. Khuntia & A. Mishra, Advocates [Intending Interveners] ____________________________________________________________ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing: 14.10.2025 :: Date of judgment :16.10.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J. These two petitions are by the teaching job aspirants. They seek to call in question the legality of recruitment process to Hindi Teacher Posts mainly on the ground that the prescribed procedure as held out in the Page 2 of 15 Recruitment Notification has not been followed and as a consequence they amongst others are put to legal prejudice. After service of notice, the State is represented by ASC and the Staff Selection Commission is represented by its Standing Counsel who has filed the Counter Affidavit & Additional Counter Affidavit as well resisting the petitions. 2. Foundational Facts: 2.1. The Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “Commission”), vide Advertisement No.IIIE-63/2004-4321/OSSE dated 22.10.2024, had called for online applications from eligible & qualified candidates inter alia for recruitment to 711 posts of Hindi Teacher. Petitioners were in the fray, their applications having been found in order and they having been issued admit cards. They wrote the Written Main Examination held on 15.05.2025. The said examination was for 150 marks, of which 20 were earmarked for Pedagogy and multiple answers were in Hindi. These questions were 1 to 20. Question nos.21 to 150 related to Hindi subject and multiple answers were in Hindi only. 2.2. The Recruitment Notification specifically states that should applications be more than five times the notified vacancies, a Preliminary Page 3 of 15 Examination would be conducted to squeeze the zone of consideration. It also stated the details of Main Written Examination as under: “Name of Post the Type of Question Number of Question Full Marks Level Subjects Languages (Medium) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Hindi Teacher MCQ 150 150 Graduation a) Hindi b) Pedagogy & Evaluation Hindi (Devnagari) English & Hindi (Roman script Devnagari script)” & Thus, as a matter of policy, bilingual facility, namely, English (Roman script) & Hindi (Devnagari script) was to be made available to the aspiring candidates. 2.3. It is the undisputed case of petitioners that neither Preliminary Examination, as represented to the public at large, was conducted nor the bilingual facility was provided. As a consequence, they had no advantage of English version of the questions. They grieve that had zone of consideration been squeezed by eliminating unworthy applicants by holding Preliminary Examination, they would have stood better chance of selection to the posts in question. The Commission, vide notice dated Page 4 of 15 12.02.2025, dispensed with holding of Preliminary Examination. Petitioners further submit that, had English questions were furnished along with Hindi, as was assured in the Recruitment Notification, they would have secured more marks and eventually got selected. 2.4. Many candidates complained inter alia about non-availability of questions on Pedagogy & Evaluation in English that had affected their performance in the Main Examination and therefore, the Commission, vide notice dated 17.05.2025, decided to give an option to all candidates to appear for the Examination in the said subject (for 20 marks only) afresh. Petitioners had applied through RTI on 17.02.2025 seeking information as to the number of applicants for the subject posts in question. However, the Commission, vide reply dated 15.03.2025, declined to furnish the information till after entire recruitment process was accomplished in the normative process. However, the key-answers published by the Commission gave hint of their under- performance to the petitioners in the selection process. That is how, they are complaining before the Writ Court alleging apparent infirmities in the recruitment process. 3. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel representing the Commission drawing attention of the Court to the Counter Affidavit & the Addl. Counter Affidavit filed with leave, makes vehement submission in justification of Page 5 of 15 the recruitment process. Learned Advocates appearing for the Intervening Applicants also resisted the petitions. The gist of submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Commission and Advocates appearing for the Intervening Applicants is as under: 3.1. Petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process without raising even a little finger about its regularity, are estopped from complaining before the Writ Court. They had full opportunity to voice their grievance at the earliest point of time and they did not avail the same sans any justification. 3.2. The Commission had in its discretion availing in terms of very Recruitment Advertisement decided not to hold Preliminary Examination since the number of applicants for the posts in question, at least going by category-wise, was less than five times the notified vacancies. Therefore, decision cannot be faltered. 3.3. Not holding Preliminary Examination has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners, inasmuch as they, having been found eligible and qualified, appeared in the Written Main Examination. The chance of selection, even if zone of consideration was squeezed by holding Preliminary Examination, is speculative and therefore, does not give actionable claim. Page 6 of 15 3.4. Whatever prejudice is caused to the candidates because of not making available bilingual facility, is rightly addressed by the notice dated 17.05.2025, whereby an option is given by the Commission to rewrite the Pedagogy & Evaluation Papers (20 marks). That option is available to petitioners as well. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the petition papers and also having adverted to relevant of the rulings cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. The Recruitment Notification admittedly held out to the public in general and aspiring candidates in particular that should applicants outnumber five times the notified vacancies, a Preliminary Examination would be conducted to congress the zone of consideration. Therefore, dispensing with the sieving exercise was unauthorized and unjustified, to say the least, reason assigned by the Commission being demonstrably wrong. The notified vacancies for recruitment in Hindi Teacher Posts were 711. As against this, there were 4493 applicants. Even by simple arithmetic, the submission of petitioners’ counsel stands substantiated, apparently, the total number of applicants for the posts in question far exceeding 1:5 ratio. Counsel is more than justified in placing reliance on Page 7 of 15 the decision of Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan1 wherein Paragraph-29 reads as under: “…The selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete...” 4.2. The vehement submission of learned Standing Counsel and learned Advocates appearing for the Intending Interveners that the petitioners are estopped from taking up the above contention, having written the Main Examination vide UOI v. Vinodh Kumar2, is difficult to countenance for the simple reason that they did not possess the information as to the number of applicants in the fray of recruitment at that point of time. Added, even their RTI application seeking said information was also not favoured by the Commission. What secrecy the Commission wanted to jealously guard in this regard remains a mystery, not even a word having been whispered in the Counter Affidavits. Even otherwise, what has been observed by the Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar supra comes to the aid of petitioners.