JUDGMENT

24th February, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

All these writ petitions involve identical facts and question of law. As such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Since the facts of each of these cases are identical, the details of only one writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.14172 of 2018 is referred to for convenience.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan (OAVS) inviting applications to fill up the post of Principal and teaching posts of various disciplines in the Adarsha Vidyalayas of the State, the petitioners possessing Bachelor’s Degree in Music from Utkal University of Culture submitted their applications. The petitioners being found eligible were issued admit cards to appear in the Computer Based Test comprising three parts. As per the modalities laid down in the advertisement, the candidates were required to score 13 marks in aggregate in Part-I of the outline Test (CBT) for the Part-II and III tests being evaluated. All the petitioners claim to have secured more than the minimum required mark in Part-I and therefore, they were expecting to be called upon to appear in the performance test as well as interview. However, as against the vacancy of 115 posts only 30 candidates were called to attend the performance test and interview held on 09.08.2018. Alleging that the petitioners were wrongly deprived of their right to appear in the performance test and interview, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petitions with the following prayer:-

“The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue a RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties No.2 & 5 to show cause as to why the list prepared under Annexure-6 with regard to the vacant post of music teachers shall not be caused to be modified to include the name of the petitioners to appear in the performance test and interview pursuant to Annexure-1 along with the list prepared under Annexure-6 and if the Opp. Parties no.2 & 3 fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the said rule be made absolute by directing the O.P. No.2 & 3 to modify the list under Annexure-6 by including the name of the petitioners to appear in the performance test and interview along with the list under Annexure-6 as per the advertisement under Annexure-1 for 115 posts.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2, refuting the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that 417 candidates had applied for the post of Music Teacher and all of them were allowed to appear in Part-I Online test. Thereafter, evaluation of Part-II and III was made and the cut-off mark was fixed by the committee constituted for the purpose as per the advertisement for the purpose of elimination. Since the petitioners secured less than the cut-off marks decided by the selection committee, they were not called upon for document verification, performance test and interview.

4. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter questioning the fixation of cut-off marks. It is stated that as per the advertisement, cut-off marks have to be fixed for Computer Based Test (CBT) and interview separately. It is further stated that according to the advertisement, the candidates who qualify in Part-I of CBT are also entitled to appear in performance test and interview. It is further stated that the committee was not competent to fix cut-off marks not being the committee constituted by the Government for the purpose. It is also stated that Music being a performing art, the merit of a candidate cannot be evaluated without holding the performance test and that merely on the basis of performance in the CBT, proper assessment of the merit of a candidate for Music discipline could not have been done in the manner done by the authorities.

5. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2