The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.3262 of 2018 Promod Bhue …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr.B. Mohanty, AGA Mr.S. Hota, Adv. for O.P.4 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.08.2024 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4 contended that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Original Application may be allowed and the impugned select list under Annexure-3 so far as the selection of ST category candidates are concerned in the Odisha Police 8th Indian Reserved Battalion, Bhanjanagar for the post of Sepoys/Constables may be quashed and necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to revalue the answer sheet of the applicant properly by awarding him 19 marks instead of 18 marks as he has correctly answered 16 multiple questions in Set-D and he may be // 2 // selected and given appointment as Sypoy/Constable in the Odisha Police 8th Indian Reserved Battalion, Bhanjanagar under ST category candidates within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal or in the alternative, any other order / orders or direction / directions maybe issued so as to give complete relief to the applicant”. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board, Odisha Police, Cuttack under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application in respect of the post of Sepoy / Constable in 8th Indian Reserved Battalion, Bhanjanagar. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner made the application as a ST category candidate and Opposite Party No.4 having secured 52 marks in total, he was provided with the appointment basing on his position in the provisional select list issued under Annexure-3. Subsequent to such selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4, Petitioner on being provided with the information under the RTI Act vide Annexure-4 came to know that Petitioner has secured 51 marks in total and he has been awarded 18 marks in the written test. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though in the written examination, Petitioner has given the correct answer to Question No.27, but he was not allowed any mark for the same and accordingly his written mark was calculated at 18 marks. Had the Petitioner been allowed 1 mark in respect of Question Page 2 of 6 // 3 // No.27, his written mark would have come to 19 and thereby his total marks to 52, similar to the mark of Opposite Party No.4 and Petitioner being senior to Opposite Party No.4 in age, he would have been selected. 4.4. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court Question No.27 and the answer thereof so provided in the book published by the Department under Annexure-6-Series. Placing reliance on the answer provided to Question No.27 under Annexure-6-Series, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner though had given the correct answer by blackening ‘A’, but he was not awarded any mark. Petitioner if will be allowed 1 mark for Question No.27, then his total mark will come to 52 and he will also get the benefit of appointment as like Opposite Party No.4. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that because of the wrong committed by the Selection Board, Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of selection and appointment as a ST category candidate. 5. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the reply submitted to the rejoinder affidavit contended that the issue raised by the Petitioner was referred to the Expert Committee and Expert Committee vide letter Page 3 of 6 // 4 // dtd.07.01.2023 under Annexure-M/3, indicated that the correct answer of Question No.27 is ‘B’ and not ‘A’. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner has been rightly awarded no mark for Question No.27 and his total mark has been rightly calculated at 51. Petitioner was not selected in ST category, as the last such selected candidate in ST category is Opposite Party No.4, who has secured 52 marks. 6. Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4 though has not filed any counter affidavit but made similar submission similar to the submission of the learned State Counsel. It is however contended that in terms of the select last issued under Annexure-3, Opposite Party No.4 was not only provided with appointment, but he is continuing as such till date. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application as a ST category candidate in respect of the post of Sepoy under 8th I.R Battalion, Bhanjangar. Basing on the provisional select list issued under Annexure-3, Opposite Party No.4 was selected and appointed having secured 52 marks in total as a ST category candidate. This Court after going through the documents available at Annexure-4-Series, finds that Petitioner has secured 52 marks in total. But Page 4 of 6 // 5 // taking into account the stand that Petitioner though has given the correct answer to Question No.27 and accordingly he was not allowed 1 mark, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has to approach the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of his grievance as made in the present Writ Petition. 7.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make an appropriate application before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of his grievance within a period three (3) weeks hence. 7.2. It is observed that if such an application is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner. 7.3. It is however observed that while taking such a decision on the claim of the Petitioner, the answer provided to Question No.27 in the Book published by the Department under Annexure-6-Series shall be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. On such verification, if it is found that Petitioner has given the correct answer to Question No.27, then he be allowed 1 mark for the same and thereafter claim of the Petitioner be considered to get the benefit of appointment as ST Page 5 of 6 // 6 // category candidate vis-à-vis Opposite Party No.4 in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition is disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Aug-2024 18:35:21 Page 6 of 6