Recruitment processes cannot alter eligibility criteria after commencement; revision of cut-off marks due to erroneous evaluation ensures fairness and does not violate the principles of non-arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J

1. These two Writ Appeals are taken up together as they arise out of a common judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 24199 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 24195 of 2022, which were heard analogously and disposed of by a common order. The Odisha Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “OPSC”), through its officials being the Appellants herein, lay a challenge to the said judgment whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, directed the Appellants to recommend the names of the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon (Group-A), Junior, Odisha Medical Service (Dental) Cadre pursuant to Advertisement dated 17.03.2018, within a period of two months from the date of communication of the judgment.

2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present Writ Appeals is that on the basis of a requisition issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, the OPSC issued Advertisement No. 15 of 2017-18 dated 17.03.2018 inviting online applications for recruitment to 198 posts of Dental Surgeon (Group-A), Junior in the Odisha Medical Service (Dental) Cadre under the Health and Family Welfare Department. The category-wise vacancy position was notified as follows:

The advertisement prescribed the method of selection as 30% weightage for career marking and 70% weightage for the written examination to be conducted by OPSC. The written examination carried 200 marks comprising 200 multiple choice questions (MCQs), with no negative marking for incorrect answers. The qualifying marks were fixed at 50% for UR and SEBC candidates, 45% for PwD candidates and 40% for SC/ST candidates. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Respondents along with other eligible candidates submitted their online applications within the stipulated period and paid the prescribed examination fee of Rs.300/-. Admit cards were issued and the written examination was conducted on 06.05.2018.

Thereafter, OPSC published a notice shortlisting 193 candidates, including the Respondents, for verification of documents. The Respondents appeared for such verification, and their documents were found to be in order. It was, however, specifically stipulated that candidature was purely provisional and subject to fulfilment of all conditions of the advertisement. Subsequently, vide Notice dated 09.08.2018, OPSC recommended 171 candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post in question. The names of the Respondents did not find place in the final list. Pursuant to directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13249 of 2018, OPSC published on 18.08.2018 the marks secured by each candidate in the written examination along with the category-wise cut-off marks. The cut-off for UR (Male) was 189.558; SC – 131.673; ST – 120.740; UR (Female) – 188.366; SC (Female) – 129.904; ST (Female) – 125.027; and PH – 146.835. On 20.08.2018, OPSC also published the Answer Key to the written examination.

Upon publication of the Answer Key, certain candidates, including the Respondents, alleged that several answers were incorrect. According to them, 15 answers in the published key were erroneous. Representations were submitted along with standard textbooks and reference mate