Odisha Public Service Commission, Cuttack … v. Satyabrata Samantasinghar & another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2260 of 2024, W.A. No. 2305 of 2024, W.A. No. 2371 of 2024 & W.A. No. 2386 of 2024 [Appeals under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letter Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948.] AFR W.A. No. 2260 of 2024 Odisha Public Service Commission, Cuttack …… Appellant --------------- - Versus - Satyabrata Samantasinghar & another ...…. Respondents W.A. No. 2305 of 2024 Prasanta Sethy & others …… Appellants - Versus - Satyabrata Samantasinghar & others ...…. Respondents W.A. No. 2371 of 2024 Diptiranjan Mohapatra & others …… Appellants - Versus - Satyabrata Samantasinghar & others W.A. No. 2386 of 2024 Satish Kanhar & others - Versus - Satyabrata Samantasinghar & others ...…. Respondents …… Appellants ...…. Respondents Page 1 of 15 Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:- ______________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12065 of 2023. FACTS 2. The Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) issued an advertisement bearing No.8 of 2022-23 for Page 2 of 15 recruitment to the post of Drugs Inspector (Group-B) under Health & Family Welfare Department. Total number of 47 posts were so notified. The present respondent No.1 applied pursuant to such advertisement and also participated in the written examination held on 19.03.2023 but was unsuccessful. He therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12065 of 2023 contending that OPSC had violated Rule- 6(4)(c) of Odisha Drugs Control Service [Drugs Control Administration] (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 (in short, the ‘2020 Rules’) and Clause-
Arguments
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arnav Behera, Adyasha Kar & Ritesh Patnaik, Advocates [For OPSC] Mr. Budhadev Routray, Sr. Advocate with M/s. S. Routray, S.Sekhar, A.K.Das, J.Biswal & M. Panda, Advocates [In W.A. Nos. 2305 & 2386 of 2024] Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with M/s. Saibrata Rath, A. Behera, S.K.Behera, S.Das, P.K.Basantia, A. Rout, A.Mohanty & T.N.Rout, Advocates [In W.A. No. 2371 of 2024] For Opp. Parties: M/s. Prasanta Kumar Mishra, K.L. Kar & S. Mishra, Advocates. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13th March, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge
Decision
6(c) of the advertisement. According to the writ petitioner, as per the aforesaid Rules, the OPSC was required to prepare Test Booklet of total 200 questions (200 marks) from 8 subjects comprising of 25 questions (25 marks) from each subject. OPSC had however, prepared the question papers/Test Booklet from 8 subjects without maintaining parity of 25 marks in each subject. The writ petitioner therefore, prayed for quashing the written examination held on 19.03.2023 with further direction to the OPSC to conduct written examination for the post of Drugs Inspector afresh by Page 3 of 15 preparing questions/Test Booklets in terms of Rule 6(4)(b) and (c) of the 2020 Rules. 3. Pursuant to notice, the OPSC appeared and filed its counter, inter alia, stating that the subjects given in the syllabus are by and large interrelated and interdisciplinary in nature, for which no subject-wise marking distribution was given in the advertisement but as per the concerned recruitment Rules, the questions setters were instructed to provide 25 questions from each subject mentioned in the syllabus. The question setters had supplied the required questions accordingly. Further, after perusing the contents of the writ application filed by the writ petitioner, OPSC constituted a committee of experts to examine the matter, which concluded that inter-subject overlapping is not uncommon and strict subject-wise segregation will be misleading and that it was a balanced question set covering the entire syllabus and chapters with by and large equal weightage to individual subjects. It was further stated in the counter that OPSC invited objections vide Notice No. 5600/PSC dated 13.08.2021 from the candidates on erroneous questions and answer options in objective type Page 4 of 15 examination within three days of completion of the examination so that the same could be placed before the subject experts for validation and preparation of answer keys before evaluation. However, no allegation/objection from the writ petitioner was received. 4. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments of the writ application vis-(cid:224)-vis the Rules and added that OPSC had admitted in its counter that it had not maintained parity in preparing question papers for each subject. Further, the stand taken in the counter that the subjects given in the syllabus are by and large interrelated and interdisciplinary in nature, for which no subject-wise marking distribution was given in the advertisement is contrary to the statutory Rules. It was also stated that OPSC being the recruiting agency has no authority to go beyond the statutory rules. The question papers prepared through so- called experts of Medical Science and not Pharmacy, were in order to favour a group of candidates specialising in the particular subject. The expert committee report is prepared by experts other than experts of Pharmacy. Page 5 of 15 5. On such facts and pleadings, the learned Single Judge heard the parties and by the judgment impugned, allowed the writ application by granting the relief claimed by the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved, the OPSC and other successful candidates of the examination have individually preferred these intra-Court appeals. For the sake of brevity, the appeal preferred by the OPSC is taken up as the lead matter, wherein, the following substantial questions of law have been pleaded. “i. Whether the learned Single Judge was legally justified in quashing the written examination as held on 19.03.2023 for recruitment to the post of Drugs Inspector (Group-B) pursuant to the Advertisement No. 8 of 2022-37 ii. Whether the learned Single Judge was legally justified in ignoring the lawful pleas of the OPSC that the examination was conducted as per the Advertisement and the Respondent No. 1 never challenged the said Advertisement at any point of time and participated in the examination process? iii. Whether the learned Single Judge was legally correct by legitimate invoking exception in the present case in hand? the procedural iv. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in not taking into consideration of the Expert opinion that in the examination in Drugs Inspector inter subject over lapping is not uncommon and subject- wise segregation would be misleading?” Page 6 of 15 7. Heard Mr. Arnab Behera, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel led arguments for the other appellants along with Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel. Also heard Mr. S.K. Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. Routray would argue that learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petitioner had never challenged the advertisement in question at any point of time and had wilfully participated in the examination process. Moreover, the writ petitioner had never submitted objection pursuant to the notice issued by the OPSC specifically relating to the erroneous questions and answers. Therefore, according to Mr. Routray, having taken a calculated chance in the examination and being unsuccessful therein as also not having submitted objection when called for within the stipulated period, it was not open to the writ petitioner to subsequently challenge the examination before this Court. Page 7 of 15 9. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel also makes similar arguments as Mr. Routray and adds that as per the settled position of law a person participating in a recruitment examination and coming out unsuccessful is estopped to challenge the same subsequently. 10. Mr. A. Behera, learned counsel appearing for OPSC would argue that as per the opinion submitted by the committee of experts inter-subject overlapping is not uncommon and strict subject-wise segregation would be misleading. This aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge in the proper perspective. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions noted above and have also perused the materials on record besides the impugned judgment. The question of locus standi of the writ petitioner to question the process of examination after participating therein was specifically raised on behalf of OPSC by referring to judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lai and Others Vrs. State of J & K and Page 8 of 15 Others1, Dhananjay Malik Vrs. State of Uttaranchal2, and Ramesh Chandra Shah Vrs. Anil Joshi3, , 12. On such basis it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner having taken a calculated chance and realising that the result of the examination would not be palatable to him, cannot turn around to question that the questions set in the Test Booklet were not in conformity with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. This preliminary objection was considered by the learned Single Judge and answered in the following manner. “10. Valiant attempt has been made by Sri Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, learned counsel by arguing in favour of sustenance of examination conducted by the OPSC, but lacked merit inasmuch as it is the petitioner examinee who after writing the examination only can and could know that the questions appearing in the Test Booklet were not containing twenty-five (25) marks in each subject. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has pressed into service the following principle laid down in Madan Lal Vrs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, stated to have been reiterated in Dhananjay Malik Vrs. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Ramesh Chandra Shah Vrs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309: "It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."