The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.30454 of 2023 Chinmaya Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. R.N.. Mishra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. A. Behera, Adv. (for OPSC-Opp.Party No.2) Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Adv. (for Opp. Party No.3) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.05.2025 Order No. 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dt.21.04.2025, instruction provided
Legal Reasoning
by Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No.3 produced in Court be kept on record. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that;
Decision
A. The writ petition may kindly be allowed. B. A writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing Annexure-5 so far it relates to PPSAN- 00088686 // 2 // C. A writ in the nature of mandamous may be issued directing the Opp. Parties , especially Opp. Party No.2-to reassess the award of marks in respect of the Petitioner strictly in terms of Table-3B enclosed to the advertisement and after reassessment, declare the Petitioner eligible to be called for interview. D. Such other order(s)/Direction(s)/Writ(s) may be issued in giving complete relief to the Petitioner. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner, shall as in duty bound ever pray. 5. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (in short, The Commission) vide Advertisement No.14 of 2021-22 to fill up the post of Assistant Professors (Stage-1) in different disciplines in Group-A of Odisha Education Service (College Branch) of Government Degree Colleges under Department of Higher Education, petitioner made the application for the post of Asst. Professor in the disciple Commerce. 5.1. It is contended that total number of posts advertised in the discipline Commerce was 30, and out of those 30 posts, 15 posts were reserved for UR category candidates with 5 for UR (women). It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-1, Petitioner made the application online under Annexure-2 and participated in the selection process. However, his name was not included in the select list published by the Commission vide notice dt.04.09.2023 under Annexure-3 in the discipline of Commerce to appear the interview. Vide another notice issued on 04.09.2023 under Annexure-4, roll nos. of candidates, whose candidature have been rejected on various grounds, was notified. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // 5.2. It is contended that vide another notice issued on dt.04.09.2023 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was not shortlisted to take part in the interview on the ground that Petitioner has failed to secure the academic score, vis-(cid:224)-vis the candidates who have been shortlisted to take the interview .Accordingly challenging such action of the Commission in not shortlisting the Petitioner to take the interview, the present Writ Petition was filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5.3. It is contended that in terms of the advertisement and taking into account the application submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-2, Petitioner was required to be awarded with 6 marks for three (3) Research Publications. But Petitioners on the face of such Research Publication being enclosed to the application, came to know that he has not been awarded the required mark for such research publication and accordingly was deprived from the purview of selection. 6. On his appearance, the Commission while filing the counter affidavit contended that out of three (3) Research Publication so submitted by the Petitioner along with the application since two (2) of the Research publications were not published in approved UGC Journals, Petitioner was not awarded 3 marks for those two Research Publication and was awarded only 1 mark for the same on the ground of research orientation. In respect of another publication, petitioner being the joint author, he was awarded with one(1) mark. By awarding such 2 marks for 3 Research Publications, total marks of the Petitioner was calculated at Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 69 and the cut-off in UR category being 70.03, his name was not included in the list of candidates held eligible to appear the interview vide Annexure-3 in the discipline Commerce. 6.1. Stand taken by the Commission in para-6 & 7 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: 6. That it may be stated herein, a bare perusal of the marking sheet of OPSC and the claims made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition would indicate that except for Research Publication, the Petitioner has been awarded the marks as claimed by him. In respect of research publications category, the Petitioner claim 6 marks in respect of 3 publications in UGC listed journals. However, the group of experts have only awarded him marks as follows: Sl. No 1 Title of the Journal Paper A study of past trends of performance of MSME sector in Odisha; A district wise approach(2016) The Orissa Journal of Commerce 2 Recent trends of NPA in Indian Banks(2019) 3 Prosecution Architecture Under Companies Act, 2013(2019) Journal of Emerging Technologies & Innovative Research Think India Journal Marks Awarded by Experts Reasons for such marks awarded 0 0 1 Not Peer reviewed/ UGC CARE listed journal in July, 2016 at the time of publication Not a Peer reviewed/UGC CARE listed journal Joint article with a co-author. Hence, 2 marks have been split on the basis of number of authors. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // Although no marks have been awarded in respect of two publications since they were not published in UGC Care Listed journals, the group of experts have been pleased to award the Petitioner one mark in light of his research orientation. Therefore, the Petitioner has been awarded a total of 1+1=2 marks for research publications. 7. That there being 15 posts of UR in the subject of Commerce, 164 number of candidates have been shortlisted for interview. The marks secured as per Table 3B by the last shortlisted candidate is 70.3 marks, whereas the Petitioner has secured 69 marks. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for shortlisting in terms of Clause 6 of the Advertisement. 6.2 Mr.A. Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission also made a submission that on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Petitioner, indicating therein that the Research Publication published in Orissa Journal of Commerce being a journal approved under Peer Review Policy and the research publications made in the Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research being a journal approved by UGC, Petitioner should have been allowed three (3) marks for those 2 Research publications as one of the same is by the Petitioner as sole author and the other one published in Orissa Journal of Commerce as joint author. But since Petitioner was only allowed one (1) mark for those 2 Research Publications in place of 3 marks, Petitioner’s total mark was calculated as 69 and accordingly he was not called for interview, the cut- off mark being 70.3 in U.R. 7.1. It is also contended that since by the time, the Writ Petition was filed, neither any recommendation was there Page 5 of 8 // 6 // in favour of any candidate with publication of the eligible list in the discipline Commerce, there was no occasion to implead any private Opp. Party/selectee and accordingly the Writ Petition as contended is not hit by non-joinder of necessary party. 8. Basing on the stand taken by the Petitioner and the Commission, this Court took help of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of UGC and directed the learned counsel to apprise this Court with regard to the status of the Research Publications published in the journals in question with passing of the following order on 12.03.2025. Order 12.03.3035 1. This matter taken up Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. is through Hybrid 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Additional affidavit filed by O.P. No.2 in Court be kept in record. 3. Considering the dispute involved, this Court permits learned counsel for the petitioner to implead UGC as O.P. No.3 in Court. Let a copy of the Writ Petition along with rejoinder, counter etc. be served on Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned counsel who usually appears for UGC in course of the day. 4. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned counsel is directed to obtain instruction as to whether the publication made by the petitioner in Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research under Annexure-7 and so also Journal published in Odisha Journal of Commerce vide Annexure-6 are approved journals. 5. As requested, list this matter on 03.04.2025. Office is directed to indicate the name of Mr. T.K. Satapathy in the case record and cause list. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 9. Pursuant to the said order, learned counsel appearing for the UGC when produced the instruction, this Court passed the following order on 21.04.2025. Order 21.04.2015 1. Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. counsel appearing for O.P. No.3 produced instruction in Court. The same be kept in record. Pursuant to order dated 12.03.2025, learned the the (IV), Basing on in Para instruction more is contended it 3.1. fully indicated that International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovation Research was listed under UGC approved list during the period from 26.07.2017 to 13.06.2019. Similarly Orissa Journal of Commerce was included list from 26.07.2017 to in the UGC approved 02.05.2018 and under UGC care list from 14.06.2019 to 10.02.2025. taken the stand Considering 4. the instruction vis-(cid:224)-vis the documents available at Annexure-6 to the Rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to being approved by UGC, the Research Publication made by the petitioner and published in Orissa Journal of Commerce was accepted under the Peer Reviewed Policy. in 5. Considering the submissions, this Court directs learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.3 to apprise this Court with regard to the exact meaning of ‘Peer Reviewed Policy’ on the next date. 6. As requested, list this matter on 02.05.2025. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the partis and considering the submission made and In view of the stand taken by the UGC that both the journals in which the Petitioner was awarded only with one(1) mark are approved journals by the UGC and under Peer Review, in terms of the advertisement, Petitioner should have been Page 7 of 8 // 8 // allowed 3 marks. Since admittedly, Petitioner has been allowed with one (1)mark and accordingly was deprived from the further purview of selection, this Court is of the view that Peitonier is entitled to get another 2 marks for such research publicaitons and thereby his total mark will come to 71. 10.1 In view of aforesaid analysis, this Court held the action of the Commission in not calling the Petitioner to attend the interview by taking his total mark as 69, the cut- off mark being 70.3 in U.R, as not sustainable in the eye of law . 10.2. This Court accordingly directs the Commission to award two(2) extra marks for such two research publications in Orissa Journal of Commerce and Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research in favour of the Petitioner and after awarding such two marks, Petitioner be allowed to appear the interview. This Court directs the Commission to complete the entire exercise as directed within a period of eight (8) weeks form the date of receipt of this order. On his attending the interview, if the Petitioner will be found eligible, his name be recommended to the Government, for taking necessary step in providing appointment to the Petitioner against any available vacancy in the discipline of Commerce. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 07-May-2025 12:09:29 sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 8 of 8