The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.21449 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Rajesh Kumar Acharya …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Samal, S.P. Nath,S.D. Routray,S. Sekhar & J. Biswal,Advocate For Opp. Parties: : M/s. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 15.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 15.09.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to ;- // 2 // 1) Why the defects, for which the petitioner’s case was solely rejected for selection to the post of Inspector of supplies 2017, shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary and the same shall not be ignored. II) Why the such defects shall not be pointed out at the initial time of scrutiny of the Application and why without giving opportunity for removal of the same, the Opp Party No has rejected at the final stage of selection. III) Why the Opp Party No.2 shall not intimate the petitio before final selection for removal of such defects as Opp Party No.2,as has done like other various examinations. IV) Why the Opp Party No.2 shall not included the name of the petitioner in the final selection list as per secured marks of the petitioner. And if the Opp. Parties fail to show any cause or show any insufficient cause, then the aforesaid Rule be made absolute and necessary directions be given to the Opp. Parties by issuing appropriate writ/writs, And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray. 3. It is contended that pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the Commission for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Supplies on contractual basis vide Advertisement dt.08.09.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made the application under Annexure-3.
Legal Reasoning
3.1. It is contended that while accepting the application so furnished, Petitioner though was allowed to participate in the recruitment process, but in the Notification issued by the Commission on 17.05.2021 under Annexure-5, his Page 2 of 12 // 3 // name was not reflected, on the ground that Petitioner while making the application in terms of Annexure-1, has not deposited the required fees in the proper Head of Account. 3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the Advertisement so issued under Annexure-1, though a Head of Account was indicated to make the deposit for making the application, but Petitioner committed a wrong by making the deposit in a different Head of Account, instead of the Head of Account prescribed in the Advertisement. It is however contended that on the face of such deposit being made by the Petitioner, his application was not only entertained, but also he was allowed to participate in the selection process. But on the ground that he has not deposited the application fee in proper Head of Account, his name was not reflected in the select list published on 17.05.2021 under Annexure-5. 3.3. It is contended that since basing on the Advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner’s application was not only entertained, but also he was allowed to participate in Page 3 of 12 // 4 // the selection process, the ground on which his candidature was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.4. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dt.30.07.2021, passed an Interim order on dt.30.07.2021, indicating therein that any action pursuant to the selection made for filling up of the post of Inspector of Supplies 2017, shall be subject to
Decision
result of the Writ Petition. 3.5. In support of his submission that deposit of the application fees made in a different Head of Account is a curable defect and it is not a material to reject the application, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appeal NO.1 of 2024, disposed of on 01.02.2024. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-15 & 19 of the said judgment has held as follows: 15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors..2023:INSC:9002023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors.. [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of Page 4 of 12 // 5 // the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:- 9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to the selection process. participate has candidate a However, participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors." in after The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex. 19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide. 3.6. It is also contended that similar issue was before this Court in the case of Pinkey Kumari Vs. State of Orissa & Others (W.P.(C ) No.274 of 2021 and W.P.(C ) Page 5 of 12 // 6 // No.10268 of 2021), disposed of on 21.12.2022. This Court vide order dt.21.12.2022 allowed the Writ Petition. Stand taken in Para-36,41,42 & 46 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: 36. Mr. B. Routrary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 204 of 2022, relying upon a judgment of Rajasthan High Court (supra) in case of Harendra Gawaria submitted that a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court has taken a view that such mistake which does not cause any prejudice on rectification can very well be ignored or be allowed to be cured, if the same is rectifiable as the same does not affect any 3rd party right. He further contended that the candidate had no ill intention while filling up the form and depositing the examination fee, rather the deposit of fee in wrong head of account is a bona fide mistake and an inadvertent error committed by the Petitioner. Further, such mistake was not pointed out at the threshold and the candidate was allowed to participate in all the stages of the recruitment careful process/test. consideration of the facts is also of the view tha the mistake committed by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 264 of 2022 is a genuine mistake and as a result of such a mistake no prejudice whatsoever has been caused t any 3rd party or any of the aspiring candidates. This Court upon a xxx xxx xxx in 41. At this juncture, the whole issue needs to be viewed and examined from another angle. So far interpretation of Rules are concerned, the Recruitment Rules certain rules are mandatory in nature and some are directory in nature. Mandatory rules are those Rules which are essential and goes to the root of the issue like the eligibility criteria fixed. The sole and all important purpose of having a set up recruitment rules is to assess the inter se merit of the candidates on a common platform by following a fair and transparent procedure. Rules which deal with eligibility criteria are mandatory Page 6 of 12 // 7 // and as such the same cannot be altered under no circumstances unless the Rule or Act. However, certain Rules deal with procedural aspect of the recruitment test. Those are directory in nature. For any infringement of such Rules, the candidature need not be canceled/rejected automatically. In case of non-compliance of such Rules, the concerned candidate must be provided an opportunity to comply the same or rectify any error in compliance before rejecting his/her candidature. Such an approach assumes more Importance in today’s scenario as more and more recruitment tests were being conducted by adopting online mode. In future it is expected that almost all recruitment tests are going to be conducted through online and digital mode. Therefore, the procedural rules assumes more important now than previously when traditional and offline modes were the only mode. 42. In the present case, the authorities although provided an window for editing, however, such editing is meaningless unless the candidate is aware of the mistake she or he has committed. Over the years, the law has evolved and the procedural laws have been made directory and the substantive laws/rules are always mandatory in nature and non-compliance of such rules shall make the application invalid and candidature is liable to be rejected. However, in the present case, we are only dealing with a provision of the Rules which is procedural and as such directory in nature. Therefore, before rejecting the candidature for non- compliance, the authorities should have provided an opportunity to rectify such mistake. Moreover, by providing such opportunity, no prejudice would have been caused to any of the participating candidates. Additionally, the rule in question provides that in the event of failure to deposit the examination fee, [have for recommended appointment to any of the vacant post by including the name of the Petitioner in the select list as she has secured the minimum cut-off mark to be included in the final select list. the name of the Petitioner xxx xxx xxx 46. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of candidature of the Page 7 of 12 // 8 // Petitioner in both the cases are extremely harsh, shockingly, disproportionate, arbitrary and as such, the same are unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this Court in the larger interest of justice and further taking into consideration the future carrier prospects of two aspiring successful candidates and without any hesitation, is of the view that the impugned rejection orders are liable to be quashed and the same hereby quashed. The respective selection agencies, I.e., OPSC and OSSC are directed to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner in both the cases to rectify the minor, bona fide and inadvertent mistakes which has not caused any prejudice to any third party within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Further, in the event such difficulties are rectified with promptitude, the recruiting agency, i.e., OPSC and OSCC are directed to recommend the names of the Petitioner subject their eligibility and performance to the requisitioning authority for their appointment against the advertised posts. The authorities are directed to act upon within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. to 4. Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection of the Petitioner’s application contended that since Petitioner while making the application pursuant to Annexure-1, never made the deposit in the Head of Account as per Clause-1(a) of the Advertisement, the said application is a defective one. However, at the time of verification of the documents as per Clause-10 of the Advertisement, since it was found that Petitioner has not made the deposit in proper Head of Account, his Page 8 of 12 // 9 // candidature was rejected. Reliance was also placed to Rule 10(1) of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 so available under Annexure-B. Rule 10(1) of the Rules reads as follows: 4.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner made the deposit towards the application fee in a different Head of Account than the Head of Account indicated in Annexure-1 Advertisement and the same came to light at the time of the verification of the documents, Petitioner’s candidature has been rightly rejected. 4.2. It is also contended that by the time the impugned order was passed by this Court on 30.07.2021, basing on the select list published on 17.05.2021 under Annexure- 5,the Commission had already made the recommendation. Hence Petitioner’s candidature at this point of time cannot be recommended. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since Petitioner’s name has not yet been recommended by the Commission, Government-Opp. Party No.1 has no role to play on the issue at present. Page 9 of 12 // 10 // 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 08.09.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made the application for the post of Inspector of Supplies on contractual basis. Even though while making the application, Petitioner was required to make the deposit in the Head of Account “0051-PSC-104- UPSC/SSC-Examination Fees-0047-Fees collected for conducting examinatioins-02041-Examination Fees” so prescribed, but it is not disputed by either of the parties that, Petitioner made such a deposit, in a different Head of Account. It is also not disputed that on the face of such deposit being made by the Petitioner, Petitioner’s application was not only entertained, but also he was allowed to participate in the selection process. 6.1. It is also not disputed that at the time of verification of document, when it was found that Petitioner has not made the deposit in terms of Para-1(a) of the Advertisement, his candidature was rejected and accordingly, his name was not reflected in the notification issued on 17.05.2021 under Annexure-5. Page 10 of 12 // 11 // 6.2. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, it is the view of this court that such a wrong committed by the Petitioner is a curable one and for the said latches, Petitioner’s candidature could not have been rejected. It is also the view of this Court that on the face of such deposit being made in a different Head of Account Petitioner’s application was not only entertained but also he was allowed to participate in the selection process. Therefore, rejecting the application at the time of verification of the documents is not only arbitrary but also harsh. 6.3. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s application was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.4. Therefore, this Court while declaring the action of the Commission in not recommending the name of the Petitioner on the ground that the deposit has been made on a wrong Head of Account as illegal, directs the Commission to take a fresh decision with regard to the eligibility of the Petitioner to get the benefit of recommendation. This Court directs the Commission to re-consider the issue and recommend the Page 11 of 12 // 12 // name of the Petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such recommendation being made, appropriate steps will be taken by Opp. Party No.1 to provide appointment to the Petitioner. 6.5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 15th September, 2025/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2025 12:32:54 Page 12 of 12