JUDGMENT

13th March, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12065 of 2023.

FACTS

2. The Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) issued an advertisement bearing No.8 of 2022-23 for recruitment to the post of Drugs Inspector (Group-B) under Health & Family Welfare Department. Total number of 47 posts were so notified. The present respondent No.1 applied pursuant to such advertisement and also participated in the written examination held on 19.03.2023 but was unsuccessful. He therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12065 of 2023 contending that OPSC had violated Rule- 6(4)(c) of Odisha Drugs Control Service [Drugs Control Administration] (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 (in short, the ‘2020 Rules’) and Clause- 6(c) of the advertisement. According to the writ petitioner, as per the aforesaid Rules, the OPSC was required to prepare Test Booklet of total 200 questions (200 marks) from 8 subjects comprising of 25 questions (25 marks) from each subject. OPSC had however, prepared the question papers/Test Booklet from 8 subjects without maintaining parity of 25 marks in each subject. The writ petitioner therefore, prayed for quashing the written examination held on 19.03.2023 with further direction to the OPSC to conduct written examination for the post of Drugs Inspector afresh by preparing questions/Test Booklets in terms of Rule 6(4)(b)

and (c) of the 2020 Rules.

3. Pursuant to notice, the OPSC appeared and filed its counter, inter alia, stating that the subjects given in the syllabus are by and large interrelated and interdisciplinary in nature, for which no subject-wise marking distribution was given in the advertisement but as per the concerned recruitment Rules, the questions setters were instructed to provide 25 questions from each subject mentioned in the syllabus. The question setters had supplied the required questions accordingly. Further, after perusing the contents of the writ application filed by the writ petitioner, OPSC constituted a committee of experts to examine the matter, which concluded that inter-subject overlapping is not uncommon and strict subject-wise segregation will be misleading and that it was a balanced question set covering the entire syllabus and chapters with by and large equal weightage to individual subjects. It was further stated in the counter that OPSC invited objections vide Notice No. 5600/PSC dated 13.08.2021 from the candidates on erroneous questions and answer options in objective type examination within three days of completion of the examination so that the same could be placed before the subject experts for validation and preparation of answer keys before evaluation. However, no allegation/objection from the writ petitioner was received.

4. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments of the writ application vis-à-vis the Rules and added that OPSC had admitted in its counter that it had not maintained parity in preparing question papers for each subject. Further, the stand taken in the counter that the subjects given in the syllabus are by and large interrelated and interdisciplinary in nature, for which no subject-wise marking distribution was given in the advertisement is contrary to the statutory Rules. It was also stated that OPSC being the recruiting agency has no authority to go beyond the statutory rules. The question papers prepared through so- called experts of Medical Science and not Pharmacy, were in order to favour a group of candidates specialising in the particular subject. The expert committee report is prepared by experts other than experts of Pharmacy.

5. On such facts and pleadings, the learned Single Judge heard the parties and by the judgment impugned, allowed the writ application by granting the relief claimed by the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved, the OPSC and other successful candidates of the examinat