✦ High Court of India

The High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41899 of 2023 Subrat Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate Chairman, Odisha Staff Selection Commission, BBSR and Another -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Adv. for the Commission Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.

Decision

ORDER 06.08.2025 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show-cause as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed in the post of Junior Executive Assistant-2022 pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.08.2022 under Annexure-1, if the opposite parties fail to show cause or shown any insufficient cause the Rule may be made absolute against the opposite parties.” // 2 // 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the OSSC on 05.08.2022 under Annexure-1, petitioner made the application for his appointment as Junior Executive Assistant ‘Initial Appointees’ for Odisha Secretariat in the Home Department, Govt. of Odisha. It is contended that in terms of the advertisement, petitioner qualified in the written test and thereafter called to take typing test in English. It is contended that as provided under Para-4 of the advertisement, a candidate has to type out 400 words within 10 (ten) minutes at a speed of 40 (forty) words per minute from a printed matter containing 400 words and candidate who fails to type out 400 words, shall be disqualified. Para-4(B) of the advertisement reads as follows:- “B. (a) The typing test shall be held for 10(ten) minutes at a speed of 40(forty) words per minute from a printed matters containing 400 words and candidate who fails to type 400 words shall be disqualified. (b) One(1) mark shall be awarded for every eight correctly typed words and minimum qualifying marks in the typing test shall be 20 (Twenty) marks. (c) A candidate who shall not appear in the typing test shall not be allowed to appear the Test in Computer Application.” 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that out of the 50 marks prescribed for such typing test, even though petitioner was awarded 49 marks, but he was held disqualified, as he failed to type out 400 words and he failed only by 3 (three) words, having Page 2 of 5 // 3 // typed out 397 words. It is contended that because of such deficiency in typing out 3 (three) words less than the prescribed 400 words, he was not allowed to take further part in the interview and accordingly he was not selected. 4.2. It is also contended that similarly situated candidates having secured 20 marks were held qualified, as they fulfilled the minimum requirement of 400 words. But petitioner was disqualified, even though he secured 49 marks out of 50 marks, but on the ground of having typed out 3 words less than the prescribed 400 words. 4.3. It is contended that as provided under the relevant recruitment rules, which was followed in the recruitment in question i.e. Odisha Secretariat Private Secretaries Service Rules, 1997, Govt. has the power to relax any provision contained under the Rules in exceptional cases. Rule-33 of the Rules reads as follows:- “33. When it is considered by the Government that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the public interest, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of employees in the service.” 4.4. It is contended that since the prescription provided under Para-4 of the advertisement with regard to type writing test is provided in the Schedule appended to the Rules and accordingly such a provision was mentioned in Page 3 of 5 // 4 // the advertisement, O.P. No.2 is competent to relax the provision so contained in the schedule by taking the case of the petitioner as an exceptional one as petitioner having typed out 397 words out of 400 words and securing 49 marks out of 50 marks, was disqualified on the face of candidates being selected having secured 20 marks but in the typing test having typed out 400 words. 4.5. It is contended that by treating the case of the petitioner as an exceptional case, Govt. be directed to relax the provision and permit the commission to proceed with the selection process in terms of the advertisement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand contended that the Commission has no such power to relax and it is only the State Govt. who can consider the petitioner’s grievance in terms of the aforesaid rules. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since petitioner has not made any grievance for such relaxation, O.P. No.2 has no occasion to consider the same. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s claim for relaxation of the requirement in the typing test requires a consideration. Therefore, while disposing the Writ Petition, this Court Page 4 of 5 // 5 // directs O.P. No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule-33 of the aforesaid Rules. If on consideration, Govt. will come to a conclusion that petitioner is otherwise eligible and has qualified the typing test, necessary permission be accorded to the Commission to take up other test prescribed in the advertisement. This Court directs O.P. No.2 to take a decision within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order before O.P. No.2 for compliance. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Aug-2025 10:50:14 Page 5 of 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments