The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25240 of 2025 Hrusikesh Mishra State of Odisha & Ors. …. -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. P. Panda, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.10.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application call for the record, Issue rule NISI calling upon opposite party to show cause as to why the result declared under dated 23.04.2025, under Annexure 3, and re-conduct of Preliminary Examination under CRE-2023 in CBRE mode vide notification dtd. 01.09.2025 under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed and failing of which submitting the show cause or showing insufficient cause or no cause, issue writ of Mandamus directing opposite parties to act in accordance to provision under para-10, 11,12 and 13 of the advertisement declaring 5 times of vacancies as successful candidates in Preliminary Examination to appear Main Examination, under Annexure 1, while quashing the result declaring all appeared candidates as qualified under Annexure 3 and re-conduct CRE-2023 in CBRE mode Under Annexure-5. // 2 // pass And/or order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice; other such And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 29.12.2023 under Annexure-1, Petitioner applied for the post in question and appeared the preliminary examination, result of which was published on 23.04.2025 under Annexure-3. However, on the face of such participation in the preliminary examination and qualifying the same, the Commission vide the impugned notice dtd.01.09.2025 under Annexure-5 has directed all the candidates to appear in the preliminary examination once again. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 participated in the preliminary examination and qualified, result of which was published on 23.04.2025, there was no occasion to conduct a fresh preliminary examination with issuance of the impugned notice on 01.09.2025 under Annexure-5. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that such a notice issued under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand basing on the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // instruction contended that because of large scale Malpractice in the preliminary examination in question and violation of the stipulation contained in Para-10 of the advertisement, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20528 of 2025. 5.1. It is contended that considering the stand taken in W.P.(C) No.20528 of 2025, this Court disposed of the matter vide order dtd.30.07.2025 on the following terms:- “1. This matter Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. taken up is through Hybrid 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the non-compliance of the stipulation contained in the advertisement dtd.29.12.2023 issued under Annexure-1 by the Odisha Sub-Ordinate Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 while issuing the impugned notice dtd.23.04.2025 under Annexure-4-Series. 4. It is contended that in terms of the advertisement, more particularly as stipulated under Para-10, candidates will be screened/ short listed to appear the Main Examination @ 5 times the number of vacancies advertised, category / special category wise as per merit. in the advertisement 4.1. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing in for the Petitioners that question, 2895 posts were advertised and accordingly five times of the candidates should have been short listed to take the Main Examination. But while publishing the impugned notice dtd.23.04.2025 under Annexure-4-Series, it has been indicated that all the candidates who have appeared the Preliminary Examination held from 20th September to 8th October, 2024, are allowed to appear the Main Examination. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 4.2. It is accordingly contended that since number of candidates allowed to take the Main Examination is contrary to the stipulation contained in Para-10 of the advertisement, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this court. 5. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate General appearing along with Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate on instruction contended that such a step was taken in allowing all the candidates appearing the Preliminary Examination, to appear the Main Examination, because of various allegations of malpractices made with regard to the recruitment process undertaken by the Commission. 5.1. However, in course of hearing, learned Advocate General fairly contended that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dtd.29.12.2023 will be held afresh as the impugned notice issued on 23.04.2025 is contrary to the provision contained under Para-10 of the advertisement dtd.29.12.2023 under Annexure-1. It is also contended that all those candidates who have made their applications in terms of the advertisement dtd.29.12.2023 will be allowed to take the Preliminary Examination once again. It is also contended that the Commission will issue necessary corrigendum in that regard within a period of two (2) weeks hence. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not intend to press the Writ Petition any further. However, the Commission is directed to issue necessary corrigendum within a period of 2 (two) weeks hence and start the process of recruitment pursuant to Annexure-1 from the stage of conducting the Preliminary Examination by allowing all those candidates who have made their applications pursuant to Annexure-1 to take the Preliminary Examination. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions”. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned notice under Annexure-5 since has been issued in terms of the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2025 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // in W.P.(C) No.20528 of 2025, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the selection process initiated by the Commission pursuant to advertisement dtd.29.12.2023 and the preliminary result published vide notice dtd.23.04.2025 was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.20528 of 2025 before this Court. This Court vide order dtd.30.07.2025 while disposing the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.20528 of 2025 permitted the Commission to start the selection process pursuant to Annexure-1 from the stage of preliminary examination by issuing a corrigendum. As found the impugned corrigendum has been issued in terms of the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2025. 6.1. In view of such position, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Commission in issuing the impugned notice under Annexure-5 and accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Oct-2025 17:26:21 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5