Equitable treatment of similarly situated candidates in recruitment processes is crucial to prevent discrimination, as established under Article 14, especially when irregularities in selection are evidenced.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the O.P.S.C.-O.P. No.2. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as documents annexed thereto.

2. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner seeks for quashing of office Order No.7000/PSC dtd.21.12.2020 under Annexure-7 with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to convene a Special Board to conduct the viva-voce test of the petitioner as has been done in the case of Ajit Kumar Pradhan, the applicant in O.A. No.1129(C) of 2016 and thereafter to recommend the case of the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.1 for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) under SEBC (M) category within a stipulated period of time.

3. The factual background leading to filing the present case, in short, is that, on 17.04.2015 the OPSC published an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). The total posts that were advertised to be filled up are 657 out of which 74 posts were reserved for SEBC category. The petitioner submitted his candidature under the SEBC (M) category on 30.08.2015. Pursuant to the advertisement, the Petitioner participated in the recruitment process consisting of a written examination that was held on 30.08.2015. After the final results were published the Petitioner found that he has secured 172 marks.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the OPSC published the result on 01.12.2015 fixing the cut-off mark for SEBC (M) category at 230 and for UR (M)-196, UR (F)- 196 & SEBC (F)-202. It was further contended that SEBC (M) candidates, who have secured more than 230 marks were asked to appear in a viva-voce test that was held on 15.12.2015. Since the Petitioner had secured less than cut-off mark, he was not invited to appear in the viva-voce test. Accordingly, the Petitioner remained under the impression that he has failed to qualify as he has not secured more marks than the cut-off fixed by the OPSC. As such he had no grievance initially. Later, on 01.02.2016, the OPSC published the merit list and recommended the names of 72 SEBC candidates to be appointed by the Government.

5. While the matter stood thus, one Ajit Kumar Pradhan, who belongs to the SEBC (M) category came to learn from the reliable sources that one Shri Satyajit Nayak belonging to the SEBC category, who had secured 170 marks has been called to appear in the viva-voce test and his name has been recommended by the OPSC to the Government for appointment. Being aggrieved by such conduct on the part of the recruiting agency i.e. OPSC the above named Ajit Kumar Pradhan approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1129(C) of 2016. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties disposed of the matter by following directions:-

13. From the above discussion, it is clear that not considering the applicant for viva voce and subsequent process of selection, while so considering persons securing lower marks than him in the written test in both SEBC and UR categories is an illegality. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant is allowed to the extent that a special board may be convened to conduct a viva voce test as per para-6 of Annexure-1 and in case he is found suitable after taking into account the marks he secures in written and viva voce