Sasmita Dash vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10710 Ori

                                    1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.31446 OF 2021

Sasmita Dash                              .....                Petitioners

                                                Mr. Saswat Das, Advocate
                                  Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                    .....          Opposite parties

                                                      Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

07.10.2021

Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Saswat Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the entire selection process conducted by opposite party no.3 for appointment to the post of Junior Stenographer pursuant to notification dated 19.02.2021 under Annexure-1 and she further seeks direction to opposite parties no.2 & 3 to conduct the selection process for appointment of Junior Stenographer by issuing fresh advertisement adhering to the evaluation method prescribed by the apex Court by appointing subject experts in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

4. Mr. Saswat Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evaluation of answer papers should not have done by the Law Officers attached to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack. To substantiate his contentions, he

has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603.

5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contended that the writ petition is premature in view of fact that selection process for recruitment to the post of Junior Stenographers has not been concluded and evaluation of answer sheets has been done by the Law Officers attached to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack. It is further contended that since the selection process has not yet been concluded, the petitioner cannot and could not have challenged the same by filing the writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that in order to fill up 44 number of posts of Junior Stenographers on contractual basis, an advertisement No.12268 dated 04.06.2018 was issued by opposite party no.2 and the said recruitment process could not be materialized successfully. Therefore, a fresh advertisement No.19900 dated 19.02.2021 was issued by the office of opposite party no.2. Under clause-5 of the said advertisement, it has been categorically mentioned that the selection will be made purely on the basis of merit by holding written and skill test followed by viva voce. It is further clarified that the appointees shall not be entitled to any service benefits as admissible to any regular State Government and appointment shall be made in terms of Group C and Group B post (Contractual Appointment) Rule, 2013 and Amendment Rule, 2017.

7. Pursuant to said advertisement, the petitioner, having

fulfilled the eligibility criteria, applied for the post of Junior Stenographer. The applications along with her application were duly scrutinized. Call letters were issued to the eligible candidates to appear in the written examination and accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the written examination. Thereafter, a list of successful candidates was published in the official website of the Advocate General vide notification No.4502/2021, Cuttack dated 01.09.2021, wherein the petitioner's name did not find place. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

8. It is contended that so far as the Heads of Department and Secretariat of the State Govt. is concerned, the posts of Group C & Group-D category including the post of Stenographer are filled up by set of statutory rules namely "Orissa Heads of the Department Stenographers' Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Private Secretaries, Personal Assistant and Stenographers) Rule, 1988" and under the said Rule, the recruitment to the post of Junior Stenographer has been entrusted to the recruiting agency like Orissa Staff Selection Commission, which is the expert body to conduct examination both written and skill test followed by viva voce. Similarly, the post of Stenographers are also filled up by the Registry of this Court by set of Rules namely "The High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 and the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2021. But, so far as the office of the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack is concerned, there is no rule for recruitment to Group C and D posts. Thereby, the

selection process conducted by the office of the Advocate General, Odisha is contrary to the rules. But, fact remains, the selection has been conducted by opposite party no.3 by making own set of guidelines. Accordingly, written test was conducted and the petitioner appeared in the said test without any protest. Therefore, when she did not come out successful, she cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. Thus, the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable.

9. Reliance has been placed on D. Suvankar (supra), wherein the apex Court in paragraph-8 held that it has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the valuation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the Examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as Examiners who have the capacity, capability to make valuation and they should really equipped for the job. In view of law laid down by the apex Court, since the valuation has been done by Law Officers attached to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack, the aforesaid judgment cannot have any application to the present case, because Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is examining the students for the High School Certificate Examination, Madhyama Examination and C.T. Examination and for them it is the examining body. The teachers, who have been imparting education to the students in respect of subjects they are only competent to evaluate the answer sheets, namely, a mathematics teacher can only examine the mathematics paper, an English teacher can only examine the English paper and it cannot be vice versa.

10. In the present case, the selection is being done from a

multiple question bringing from different subjects. More so, the Law Officers attached to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha, though belong to different streams in graduate level, they have acquired LL.B qualification and got experience in their lives from which the questions have been put in the examination itself. They have evaluated the answer sheets on the basis of key answers provided to them and the questions are objective types and there cannot be any multiple answers to the question framed for conducting the examination. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Law Officers attached to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha are also competent to evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates.

11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the case so as to interfere with the selection process adopted by the office of the Advocate General, Odisha for recruitment to the post of Junior Stenographer. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.

Alok DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.