The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26271 of 2023 Shiba Prasad Rath State of Odisha & Ors. Petitioner Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate …. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Adv. for O.P.3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of Opposite Party No.1 in Court today. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Petitioner therefore most humbly prays that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue s Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner shall not be declared as illegal and be quashed And as to why the Opp. Parties (more particularly Opp. Parties No. 3) shall not be directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of junior Executive Assistant per Advertisement at // 2 // Abnnxeure-1 and consequentially give appointment to the Petitioner if he is found eligible thereto; as And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute; issue order/orders, And/or direction/directions which would offer complete relief to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case;. other any And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 the recruitment of Junior Executive Assistant as ‘Initial Appointees’ for Odisha Secretariat under the Home Department, Petitioner made his application and participated in the selection process. 5.1. It is contended that as provided in the advertisement vide Para-4(B), a candidate has to type out 400 words in the typing test in 10 minutes. Even though Petitioner typed out 400 words in the typing test so available under Annexure-7-Series, but on the ground that, Petitioner has typed out 399 words in place of 400 words, his candidature was rejected vide Annexure-5. 5.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner filed an application under Annexure-8 on 28.07.2023 to review his case, taking into account the fact that he has typed out 400 words in the typing test, but the same was never considered. Accordingly the present Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Writ Petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while calculating the number of word typed out by the Petitioner in the typing test, the Commission though initially held that Petitioner has typed out 400 words, but subsequently by taking the same as 399 words his candidature was rejected under Annexure-5. 5.4. It is contended that since Petitioner has typed out 400 words out of the 402 words prescribed in the test, available under Annexure-7-Series, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that Opposite Party No.3 be directed to recommend his name for his appointment to the post in question. A further submission was also made that vide order dtd.06.03.2024 in I.A. No.18742 of 2023, this Court has directed not to fill up one post of Junior Executive Assistant without leave of this Court. 6. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection contended that, since Petitioner in the typing test as per the Experts Opinion has typed Page 3 of 5 // 4 // out 399 words instead of 400 words as reflected under Annexure-7, his claim has been rightly rejected. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has not typed out 400 words in terms of the provisions contained under Para -4.(B) of the advertisement, no interference is called for with regard to the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application for the post of Junior Executive Assistant as ‘Initial Appointees’. As found from Annexure-5, he was disqualified only on the ground that he has failed in the typing test. 7.1. This Court after going through the advertisement finds that a candidate has to type out 400 words in 10 minutes in terms of the provisions contained under Para-4-B of the advertisement. As found from Annexure-7 series, Petitioner has typed out 400 words out of the 402 words prescribed in the test and it was initially indicated accordingly. But subsequently by taking the word so typed out at 399 words. Petitioner’s candidature was rejected vide Annexure-5. 7.2. This Court after going through the document available under Annexure-7-Series, is of the view that Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Petitioner has in fact typed out 400 words and not 399 words and the ground on which Petitioner’s candidature has been rejected vide Annexure-5 as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.3. Therefore, while quashing the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature on the ground indicated in Annexure-5, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to recommend his name if the Petitioner is otherwise eligible, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such recommendation, consequential follow up action be taken by Opposite Party No.1, taking into account the interim order passed by this Court on 06.03.2024 and provide appointment to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the Commission. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 18:45:28 Page 5 of 5