The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21067 of 2025 Union of India & others …. Petitioners Mr. Santosh Kumar Samantray, C.G.C. -versus- Mitrabhanu Sahu & another Opp. Parties …. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA ORDER 13.10.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Order No. 01. arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.273 of 2019. It appears that the opposite party no.1- Mitrabhanu Sahu filed the Original Application with a prayer for quashing the revised select list in respect to the selection against the vacancies of Sundargarh Division for the year 2018 and to direct the petitioners to give promotion to him to the cadre of PA/SA from the date of promotion of his juniors by issuing fresh select list. Page 1 of 9 The factual scenario would reveal that as per the recruitment rules, there were 100 marks for Paper-I and qualifying marks were 40%, i.e. 40 marks. However, due to certain ambiguity, two questions were deleted in Paper-I and thereafter, the maximum marks remained 96 and the qualifying 40% marks was 38.4. The applicant having secured 42 marks in Paper-I and 52 marks in Paper-II, total of 94 marks, was declared successful under UR category vide letter dated 21.02.2019. However, after clarification from the Directorate vide letter dated 22.02.2019, the minimum qualifying mark for Paper-I was rounded off to 38 from 38.4, which resulted into
Legal Reasoning
We find that in the original notification, there was no such relaxation provided, however by bringing the subsequent guideline dated 22.02.2019, the Rule of the game has been apparently changed in between the game. Therefore, the proforma opposite party’s case should not have been favorably considered. Accordingly, we find that the learned Tribunal has rightly quashed the revised select list for the year 2018 of the Sundargarh Division in respect of the selection of the proforma opposite party and rightly remitted the matter back to the competent authority to redo the entire selection strictly in accordance with law as the discussed in the impugned order. Page 8 of 9 Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Subhasis Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 14-Oct-2025 10:48:35 Page 9 of 9
Arguments
qualification of private Respondent No.4, viz. Sri Satyanarayan Mahanta. Sri Mahanta had secured 38 marks in Paper-I and 62 marks in Paper-II, i.e. a total 100 marks and was declared unsuccessful earlier due to non-qualifying in Paper-I but after clarification dated 22.02.2019, he came within the range of qualification and as he had secured 100 marks in toto, i.e. more than the total marks secured by the applicant (94 marks), he was selected for appointment as PA under UR category in Sundargarh Division vide letter dated 25.02.2019 replacing the applicant. After issuance of notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Central Administrative Page 2 of 9 Tribunal and filed the counter affidavit wherein the main stand was, since the qualifying marks for Paper-I (LGP/LGS) was reduced to 38 from 38.4 by adopting rounding up principle, the proforma opposite party no.1, Postman, Rourkela Head Office under Sundargarh Division became successful in the examination by securing total 100 marks i.e. Paper-I- 38 and Paper-II-62, who was earlier declared as failed for securing 38 marks in Paper-I against the required qualifying marks of 38.4 and the further stand has been taken that since the proforma opposite party no.1 secured more marks i.e. 100 than the opposite party no.1, who secured 94 marks, the proforma opposite party was selected for appointment as PA under UR category in Sundargarh Division by replacing the opposite party no.1. The learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and hearing learned counsel for both the parties and by placing reliance on the following case laws passed the impugned order: (i) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51- “the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.” (ii) K.Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Page 3 of 9 Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512- “Changing the rules of the game after the game was played is clearly impermissible.” (iii) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. UOI, (1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shuka Vs. UOI, (1985) 3 SCC 721, Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa, (1987) 4 SCC 646, Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, and Secretary A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC 154 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the view as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Annexure-5, which is the declaration of result dated 25.02.2019 submits that since two questions were ambiguous out of 100, those two questions were deleted and out of 96 the qualifying marks of 40 was proportionately reduced to 38.4, but subsequently the revised guideline was issued by rounding up, it was made 38. Relevant would be to reproduce the following paragraphs of the letter dated 22.02.2019 on the basis of which this result was declared. “2. Also, the minimum qualifying marks for General/UR category candidates is 40% and for SC/ST candidates 33% (each MCQ carrying 2 marks) as per Directorate letter dated 10.03.2011. In the first instance, (for SC/ST category), it is not possible to obtain odd marks i.e. 33% (or 33 out of Page 4 of 9 100) marks, because each question carries marks in multiples of 2. 3. Consequent upon deletion of 2 questions in Paper-1, the maximum marks for Paper-1 will be 96 instead of 100. Similarly, maximum marks for Paper-II (LGP & LGS) will be reduced from 100 to 94 due to deletion of 3 questions in each paper. 4. Thus, the qualifying marks, paper-wise, will be worked out as under: Paper(s) Maximum marks after deletion Qualifying Marks of questions (OC/UR – 40%) (SC/ST – 33%) Paper-I (LGP/LGS) 96 Paper-II (LGP) Paper-II (LGS) 94 94 38.4 37.6 37.6 31.68 31.02 31.02 5. It is obvious form the table above, that the minimum qualifying marks in both papers i.e. paper-I and paper-II for OC/UR (General) and SC/ST candidates is in decimal fraction. For resolving the issues regarding re-fixing the qualifying marks (because securing marks in decimal fraction is not possible). 6. The matter has been considered by the Competent Authority and the following line of action has been decided. Marks in fraction below 0.5 can be rounded to the lower integer and marks above the fraction of 0.5 can be rounded to the next higher integer. For example, 38.4 marks can be rounded to 38 marks and 31.68 marks can be rounded to 32 marks. The above analogy could be made applicable in both the papers for all the Page 5 of 9 categories but for the below. 7. After taking into account all the factors, the final minimum qualifying marks for the purpose of evaluation in both the papers are tabulated as under with explanation in each case: Paper(s) Maximum marks after Qualifying Marks deletion of questions UR SC/ST Paper-I (LGP/LGS) 96 Paper-II (LGP) Paper-II (LGS) 94 94 Explanation: - 38 (39.58%) 30* (31.25%) 38 (39.58%) 30** (31.91%) 38 (39.58%) 30** (31.91%) For candidates belonging to UR category as per rounding formula, in both the papers, the minimum qualifying percentage of marks will be 39.58% i.e. 38 marks in both the papers as one-time relaxation. *For SC/ST candidates in paper 1, the above analogy of rounding can't be made applicable because 31.68 marks in table given in para 4 above, will become 32 marks i.e. 33.33% which will be beyond the qualifying marks of 33% for SC/ST candidates. So, the qualifying marks have been reduced to 30 i.e. 31.25% (i.e. below the bench mark of 33%) as one-time relaxation. **Similarly, for SC/ST candidates in paper-II, on the above analogy, 31.02 marks have been reduced to 31 marks, but no candidate can obtain 31 marks, so qualifying standard is further reduced to 30 marks i.e. 31.91% (i.e. below the bench mark of 33%) as one-time relaxation.” Page 6 of 9 We find that by the revised guideline, the procedure for selection has been changed after the selection process commenced. If the petitioners would have struck to the initial notification then admittedly the proforma opposite party would not have qualified for getting the promotion, as he secured less than 40%. By analyzing the factual matrices and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the learned Central Administrative Tribunal arrived at the following conclusion: had after examination “8. We find from the record that qualifying marks, as reflected in the notification, for each paper for General Category candidate is 40% marks, which is also as per the Directorate letter No.60-10/2011- SPB-1 dated 10.03.2011 (R/1). Actual pass marks would depend on the total marks for which examination was conducted. In the instant case, since total marks were revised to 96 & 94 subsequently been conducted, the pass marks of 40%, as per rules, would amount to 38.4 and 37.6. There being no mention of rounding off principle in the notification, issuance of the letter dated 22.02.2019 clarifying that pass marks would be 38 for all papers, boils down to 38% for Paper-I and 40.4% for Paper II and III ; as a result prescribing pass percentage as 38% for Paper-I, which is less than to 40% as notified. Hence, through clarification a one time relaxation has been given. The action of the respondents amounts to changing the rule of game after the game had started, which is opposed to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases Bhimrao Mandve, K.Manjusree, P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra). Also, it has been submitted that there is no such Rajendra of Page 7 of 9 in the original notification for such mention relaxation. Similarly, on examination of the case with reference to the law laid down on the question of rounding off, we find that adoption of such procedure is also against the law laid down in the cases of Rupashree Chowdhary, G. Hemlatha and Ors, Sarit Chakraborty, Hemant Bakolia (supra). the revised select 9. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we hereby quash list of Sundargarh Division for the year 2018 in respect of selection of private respondent No.4 and remit the matter back to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with the discussions made above on the basis of the marks secured without following the rounding off principle and intimate the result thereof to the applicant. The entire process be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this OA.” the competent authority to