Back
2012 Supreme(Ori) 524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Shri. V. Gopala Gowda, Shri B.N. Mahapatra., JJ.
SANJAY KUMAR SAHOO - APPELLANT
Versus
REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) - RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No. 1787 of 2012
Decided On : 17-10-2012
Rabindra K. Patnaik, S. Pattnaik, T.K. Dwibedi, B. Jally, P.C. Das and S. Parida, Advocates, for the Appellant; R.K. Mohapatra, Government Advocate, for the Opponent Parties
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of challenges to examination results and the limitations of seeking relief not provided for in the rules.
Headnote:
Selection Procedure - District Judge Examination - O.S.J.S. & O.J.S. Rules, 2007 - AIR 1993 SC 2493, AIR 2002 SC 1752, AIR 2008 SC 2103, AIR 2010 SC 3714
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate for the post of District Judge, challenged the selection procedure after being unsuccessful in the test. He sought re-evaluation of answer papers, display of marks, and declaration of success based on combined written and viva-voce marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that relief for re-evaluation was not provided for in the rules, marks for Advertisement No.3/2011 were already displayed, and the challenge to the 2008 and 2010 examinations was not permissible due to finality of previous court orders and lack of timely filing.
Issues: Relief for re-evaluation, display of marks, and challenge to past examination results.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that relief for re-evaluation was not provided for in the rules, marks for Advertisement No.3/2011 were already displayed, and the challenge to the 2008 and 2010 examinations was not permissible due to finality of previous court orders and lack of timely filing.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed with following prayers:
(i) why written answer papers of the writ petitioner relating to the District Judge Examination dated 10.07.2011 under direct recruitment from Bar vide Advertisement No.1/2011 shall not be re-evaluated/aggregated/checked or reassessed/re-added.
(ii) why the marks secured by all examinees vide advertisement No.3/2011 shall not be displayed in the Court's website.
(iii) why not the petitioner be declared "successful and selected" in respect of his qualifying in the written test and viva-voce in 2008 and 2010 taking into account the written and viva-voce marks together as per the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1993 SC 2493, AIR 2002 SC 1752, AIR 2008 SC 2103 and AIR 2010 SC 3714.
2. Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that he is the "twice-written-qualified" candidate for the post in the Cadre of District Judge directly appeared from the Bar for the year 2008 having Roll No.953 and 2010 having Roll No.133. He was deprived of being selected in the year 2010 as he was found unsuccessful in viva-voce test for a margin of two marks. In the year 2008 in toto 22 numbers of candidates were qualified out of around 1500 applicants for 16 numbers of vacancies. Out of 22 numbers of written qualified candidates only 5 numbers of candidates were selected in viva-voce following cut-off marks in the viva-voce though the same was not mentioned in advertisement No.1 dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure-4). Thus, in the advertisement dated 11.04.2008 though no cut-off mark was mentioned, the same was followed in the selection process. The advertisement was also silent regarding Rules/Act/Notification etc. under which it was conducted. Subsequently, opposite party No.3-Registrar General, Orissa High Court has also increased the upper age limit of the applicants up to 48 years through a Corrigendum dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure-5). The petitioner in the year 2008 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.16313 of 2008 before this Court against the selection procedure of selecting only 5 candidates out of 22 candidates against 16 number of vacancies as that was in contravention of the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2103. The said writ petition was tagged with W.P.(C) Nos.16104 and 16134 of 2008. All the writ petitions were heard together and dismissed on 03.12.2008 on the ground that the petitioner challenged the selection procedure after being unsuccessful in the test and not before and they had well knowledge about the cut-off marks prior to facing their examination.
3. The petitioner again appeared in the said examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2009. In that examination, 6 nos. of candidates out of around 650 applicants were declared qualified in written examination against 15 nos. of vacancies. Later on out of 6 candidates, 2 candidates were disqualified. In the Advertisement No.1 of 2009 (Annexure-10), there was mention of the rules under which the examination to be conducted and minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce test which were not mentioned in 2008 advertisement.
4. Petitioner again appeared in the examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2010 (Annexure-11) for the third time and qualified the written examination. This year for the first time the marks secured by various candidates in the written examination was published/displayed in the website of the Odisha High Court under Annexure-11. The petitioner prayed before the Public Information Officer under the R.T.I. Act for supplying the viva-voce mark and thereafter the mark was supplied and it was found to be 10 i.e. just 2 marks less from qualifying mark, i.e., 40% of 30 marks. The viva-voce mark sheet is annexed as Annexure-12. The petitioner has secured 56 marks in Paper-I and 50 mark in Paper-II. The aggregation of written and viva-voce is 116 mark i.e. 56+50+10 = 116 out of 100+100+30 and comes within the ratio laid down in Ramesh Kum
