Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Phiroj Kumar Mahapatra and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 15086, 16409 of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compliance with Recruitment Advertisement - The Court emphasized adherence to the stipulated selection procedures as non-compliance undermines fairness. Precedents highlight the necessity of following declared recruitment rules strictly. (Paras 4.1, 4.6)
(C) Estoppel - The argument of estoppel was discredited as the petitioners lacked information about the number of applicants, impacting their ability to raise timely grievances. (Paras 4.2)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the recruitment process for Hindi Teacher posts due to the absence of a Preliminary Examination and bilingual facilities as outlined in the Recruitment Notification, adversely affecting their selection chances. (Paras 2.1, 2.3)
Findings of Court:
The process was quashed due to unauthorized changes in the recruitment procedure, and directions were issued to conduct a Preliminary Examination and provide bilingual facilities. (Paras 4.7)
Issues: Whether the failure to conduct the Preliminary Examination and provide bilingual options compromised the recruitment process's legality. (Paras 4.3, 4.6)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Commission's deviation from the published selection procedure was unauthorized and prejudicial. Recruitment processes must strictly adhere to the advertised terms. (Paras 4.1, 4.6)
Result: Petitions allowed; selection process quashed; Preliminary Examination and bilingual facility mandated.
For the Appellants : B.B. Mohanty, G.R. Sethi
For the Respondents: J.K. Ray, S.N. Pattanaik, S. Swain, A.P. Bose, D.K. Sethy, K.K. Swain, P.N. Mohanty, S.C.D. Dash, U.C. Chhotray, P.K. Mohapatra, K. Swain, J.R. Khuntia, A. Mishra
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of recruitment procedure. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against petitioners' claims. (Para 3) |
| 3. analysis of legal precedents and duties. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
1. These two petitions are by the teaching job aspirants. They seek to call in question the legality of recruitment process to Hindi Teacher Posts mainly on the ground that the prescribed procedure as held out in the Recruitment Notification has not been followed and as a consequence they amongst others are put to legal prejudice. After service of notice, the State is represented by ASC and the Staff Selection Commission is represented by its Standing Counsel who has filed the Counter Affidavit & Additional Counter Affidavit as well resisting the petitions.
2. Foundational Facts
2.1. The Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “Commission”), vide Advertisement No.IIIE-63/2004-4321/OSSE dated 22.10.2024, had called for online applications from eligible & qualified candidates inter alia for recruitment to 711 posts of Hindi Teacher. Petitioners were in the fray, their applications having been found in order and they having been issued admit cards. They wrote the Written Main Examination held on 15.05.2025. The said examination was for 150 marks, of which 20 were earmarked for Pedagogy and multiple answers were in Hindi. These questions were 1 to 20. Question nos.21 to 150 related to Hindi subject and multiple answers were in Hindi only.
2.2. The Recruitment Notification specifically states that should applications be more than five times the notified vacancies, a Preliminary Examination would be conducted to squeeze the zone of consideration. It also stated the details of Main Written Examination as under:
| “Name of the Post | Type of Question | Number of Question | Full Marks | Level | Subjects | Languages (Medium) |
| xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx |
| Hindi Teacher | MCQ | 150 | 150 | Graduation | a) Hindi | Hindi (Devnagari) |
| b) Pedagogy & Evaluation | English & Hindi (Roman script & Devnagari script)” | |||||
Thus, as a matter of policy, bilingual facility, namely, English (Roman script) & Hindi (Devnagari script) was to be made available to the aspiring candidates.
2.3. It is the undisputed case of petitioners that neither Preliminary Examination, as represented to the public at large, was conducted nor the bilingual facility was provided. As a consequence, they had no advantage of English version of the questions. They grieve that had zone of consideration been squeezed by eliminating unworthy applicants by holding Preliminary Examination, they would have stood better chance of selection to the posts in question. The Commission, vide notice dated 12.02.2025, dispensed with holding of Preliminary Examination. Petitioners further submit that, had English questions were furnished along with Hindi, as was assured in the Recruitment Notification, they would have secured more marks and eventually got selected.
2.4. Many candidates complained inter alia about non-availability of questions on Pedagogy & Evaluation in English that had affected their performance in the Main Examination and therefore, the Commission, vide notice dated 17.05.2025, decided to give an option to all candidates to appear for the Examination in the said subject (for 20 marks only) afresh. Petitioners had applied through RTI on 17.02.2025 seeking information as to the number of applicants for the subject posts in question. However, the Commission, vide reply dated 15.03.2025, declined to furnish the information till after entire recruitment process was accomplished in the normative process. However, the key-answers published by the Commission gave hint of their under- performance to the petitioners in the selection process. That is how, they are complaining before the Writ Court alleging apparent infirmities in the recruitment process.
3. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel representing the Commission drawing attention of the Court to the Counter Affidavit & the Addl. Counter Affidavit filed with leave, makes vehement submission in justification of
