Orissa High Court
Smt. Rajanigandha Mohanta vs State Of Odisha And Others on 29 August, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 21003 OF 2014
AND
W.P.(C) No.20335 OF 2014
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR In W.P.(C) No.21003 of 2014
Smt. Rajanigandha Mohanta ..... Petitioner
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Bimbisar Dash &
C. Mohanta, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel
In W.P.(C) No.20335 of 2014
Smt. Sumitra Naik ..... Petitioner
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Bimbisar Dash &
C. Mohanta, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing: 24.08.2023 :: Date of Judgment : 29.08.2023
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The above noted two writ petitions arise
out of same cause of action, as the petitioners therein
seek to quash the second list of candidates qualified in the
written test held on 25.09.2011 under Annexure-7,
proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the selection board held
in the office of the D.F.O., Karanjia Division on
21.12.2011 under Annexure-8, the notice dated
24.12.2012 with regard to final select list under
Annexure-9, as well as the order dated 04.08.2014 passed
by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack in O.A. NO.770(C) of 2012 and batch under
Annexure-12. They further seek direction to the opposite
parties to consider them as eligible and appoint them as
against the vacant posts meant for female candidates.
Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and
are disposed of by this common judgment, which will
govern in both the cases.
2. The factual matrix, which led to filing of these
writ petitions, shortly put, is as follows:-
2.1 Opposite party no.2-Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, Odisha issued a notification under Annexure-1
inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up
several posts of Forest Guard under direct recruitment
quota in accordance with the Orissa Sub-Ordinate Forest
Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service
of Forest Guard) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter to be referred as
"Rules, 1998" in short). Pursuant to said notification, the
petitioners submitted their candidature for Karanjia
Forest Division. After verification of documents, being
found eligible, they were directed to appear in the written
test on 25.09.2011 with Roll No.147K(FG) of petitioner-
Rajanigandha Mohanta in W.P.(C) No.21003 of 2014 and
Roll No.358(FG) of petitioner-Sumitra Naik in W.P.(C)
No.20335 of 2014.
2.2 Both the petitioners appeared in the written
test on 25.09.2011 conducted by opposite party no.4-
Divisional Forest Officer, Karanjia Forest Division. The
result of the said written test was declared on 02.10.2011,
in which the names of the petitioners found place at serial
nos.29 and 64 in the list. In the said written test, as many
as 84 candidates were declared as qualified and, as such,
the result of the written test was published in the notice
dated 25.09.2011. After being selected in the written test,
the petitioners were directed by opposite party no.4 to
appear before him for verification of original certificates,
measurement of physical standard and for cycling test on
12th, 13th and 14th of October, 2011. After verification of
original certificates, measurement of physical standard
and cycling test, the petitioners, along with 49 candidates,
were declared eligible to appear in the walking test to be
held on 28.10.2011. Accordingly, the petitioners were
asked to appear in the walking test on 28.10.2011 and
they appeared in the said test on same date. Thereafter, a
notice was published by opposite party no.4 vide
Annexure-6(A) dated 29.10.2011 indicating the names of
47 candidates qualified in the walking test, wherein the
name of petitioner-Rajanigandha Mohanta in W.P.(C)
No.21003 of 2014 was found place at serial no.21 and the
name petitioner-Sumitra Naik in W.P.(C) No.20335 of
2014 was found place at serial no.40. Accordingly,
opposite party no.4 intimated both the petitioners to
attend the viva voice test on 09.12.2011
2.3 On 17.11.2011, a second list of 29 candidates
was released vide Annexure-7, wherein the names of the
petitioners did not find place. Thereafter, pursuant to
proceedings of the meeting of the selection board held on
21.12.2011, opposite party no.4 published a notice on
21.12.2011 under Annexure-8 showing the petitioners
disqualified in the written test. From out of two list, a list
containing 21 names was released, which was declared to
be the select list of candidates for recruitment to the post
of Forest Guard. The candidates placed in the 2nd list were
subjected to viva-voce test along with the previously
qualified 83 candidates including the petitioners on
09.12.2011. Thereafter, a final select list was published
vide Annexure-9.
2.4 Challenging the illegal action of the opposite
parties, petitioner-Rajanigandha Mohanta in W.P.(C)
No.21003 of 2014 and petitioner-Sumitra Naik in W.P.(C)
No.20335 of 2014 filed O.A. No.773(C) of 2012 and O.A.
No.771(C) of 2012 respectively before the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.
Similarly, challenging the action of the opposite parties
one Bindu Rekha Mohanta filed O.A. No.770(C) of 2012
and Reena Patra filed O.A. No.772(C) of 2012. The
Tribunal heard the aforesaid cases together and passed a
common order on 17.07.2014 dismissing the said Original
Applications.
2.5. Challenging the order dated 17.07.2014 passed
by the Tribunal, Rajanigandha Mohanta filed W.P.(C)
No.21003 of 2014 and Sumitra Naik filed W.P.(C)
No.20335 of 2014. Bindu Rekha Mohanta filed W.P.(C)
No.19803 of 2014, which was dismissed as withdrawn,
vide order dated 18.04.2019 granting liberty to the
petitioner to file an application within 30 days from the
date of passing of the order for revival of the said writ
petition in case of any difficulty. Learned counsel
appearing in the said case is the counsel for the present
writ petitioners.
2.6. In course of hearing, this Court made a query
that when this Court, vide order dated 18.04.2019,
granted liberty for revival of W.P.(C) No.19803 of 2014
within a period of 30 days in case of any difficulty, did the
petitioner file any application. In reply, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners stated that no such
application was filed. Therefore, the order dated
18.04.2019 reached its finality, so far as Bindu Rekha
Mohanta is concerned. But, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners wanted to pursue the present writ petitions
filed by Rajanigandha Mohanta and Sumitra Naik and
accordingly they were taken up for hearing.
3. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were
selected pursuant to written test held on 25.09.2011 and,
thereafter, they were directed to appear before opposite
party no.4 for verification of original certificates,
measurement of physical standard and cycling test on
12.10.2011, 13.10.2011 and 14.10.2011 respectively and
also they were declared successful. Therefore, they could
not have been declared disqualified in the written test
without affording opportunity of hearing. It is further
contended that if the opposite parties found any mistake
in the result of the written test, then they could have
withdrawn the select list and conducted a re-test
cancelling the 1st result. Without doing so, the opposite
parties invited the petitioners to attend the viva voce test
and, therefore, they are estopped to declare that the
petitioners could not qualify in the written test. Since the
petitioners were qualified in written test, certificate
verification, measurement of physical standard and
cycling test, their legitimate expectation would be to get
employment, but the select list was modified on the
ground that there were mistakes in the declaration of
selected candidates in the written test and published the
second list, which cannot have any justification. It is
further contended that in the proceedings of the meeting
held on 21.12.2011, it was reflected that revised mark-
sheet was communicated to opposite party no.4 by the
RCCF-cum-FD-STR, Baripada on 04.11.2011 which
superseded the former mark-sheet, and that altogether
names of 113 candidates, i.e., 84 (as per the first mark-
sheet) and 29 new (as per revised mark-sheet) were
considered for the exercise of certificate verification. The
selection board conducted viva voce test of 58 candidates,
including the petitioners, who were alleged to have been
failed in the written test as per the revised mark sheet.
Therefore, it is contended that the entire procedure
adopted by the opposite parties is de-hors the rules. The
Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Applications, vide
common order dated 17.07.2014, failed to appreciate the
wrong committed by the opposite parties. Thereby, the
Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face
of the record so as to cause interference of this Court at
this stage.
4. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-opposite parties, while admitting
the fact that direct recruitment to the posts of Forest
Guard in different Divisions/Offices in Orissa Forest
Department was made in accordance with the Rules,
1998, contended that the process of recruitment includes
(a) written test (Math & Odia), (b) physical standard test,
(c) cycling test, (d) walking test and (e) viva voce test. First
four tests are qualifying tests, i.e. if a candidate fails to
qualify in any of those tests, he/she is not eligible to
appear in the subsequent tests. When the written test was
conducted, evaluation process was started and after
evaluation, the answer-sheets were de-coded. Marks
secured by the candidates were then tabulated and
published in shape of score-sheet. In course of coding/de-
coding of answer sheets by the Data Entry Operators,
certain inadvertent errors were occurred. Marks actually
secured by the candidates could not fit correctly against
their roll numbers. As a result of thereof, some of the
candidates got less marks although failed and some other
candidates got less marks even though they were
qualified. On the other hand, 29 candidates, who had
actually passed in the written test examination, their
marks were not accurately tabulated against their names
in the initial score-sheet. Their marks were either shown
as less mark or shown as disqualified. Because of this
error in tabulation, qualified candidates were shown as
disqualified in the written examination and debarred from
attending subsequent tests for no fault of them. In order
to set right the things, these 29 candidates were called to
attend subsequent tests in second batch. Thereby, when
mistake was pointed out, the same was rectified and as a
consequence thereof, no illegality or irregularity has been
committed by the authority in publishing the second list
showing the qualified candidates in accordance with law.
Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal is well
justified in passing the order impugned, which does not
require interference of this Court at this stage.
5. This Court heard Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. S. Nayak,
learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
opposite parties in hybrid mode and perused the records.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of
admission.
6. The factual matrix, as delineated above, as well
as the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, as recorded hereinbefore, if
summed up, would emerge that an advertisement was
issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for
recruitment to the posts of Forest Guard in different
Divisions/Offices in Orissa Forest Department for filling
up of vacancies under direct recruitment quota in
accordance with the Rules, 1998. As per the said Rules,
1998, the process of recruitment includes (a) written test
(Math & Odia), (b) physical standard test, (c) cycling test,
(d) walking test and (e) viva voce test. First four tests are
qualifying tests, i.e., if a candidate fails to qualify in any of
those tests, he/she is not eligible to appear in the
subsequent tests. For example, if a candidate is failed in
the written examination, he/she is not eligible to appear in
any of the tests thereafter. That means, passing in each
examination is mandatory. In the year 2011, direct
recruitment of Foresters and Forest Guards in Karanjia
Division was undertaken by opposite party no.4. Pursuant
to such advertisement, the petitioners submitted their
applications in respect of posts of Forest Guard and were
allowed to appear in the written test. Before the written
test, activities like setting of question papers, selection of
examination centres, selection of Centre Superintendent,
Invigilators were discharged by the RCCF, Baripada Circle
in accordance with the provisions laid down under Rule-
14(d)(iv) of the Rules, 1998. Prior to the process of
evaluation, front page of answer sheets carrying
candidate's bio-data are replaced with code-tags and this
exercise had been adopted by the RCCF, Baripda as a fair
practice with a view not to entertain any personal biasness
of evaluators. After evaluation, the answer-sheets were de-
coded. Marks secured by the candidates were then
tabulated and published in shape of score-sheet.
7. In course of coding/de-coding of answer sheets
by the Data Entry Operators, certain inadvertent errors
were occurred. Marks actually secured by the candidates
could not fit correctly against their roll numbers. As a
result of thereof, some candidates got less marks although
failed and some candidates got less marks even though
they were qualified. On the other hand, 29 candidates,
who had actually passed in the written test examination,
their marks were not accurately tabulated against their
names in the initial score-sheet. Their marks were either
shown as less mark or shown as disqualified. Because of
this error in tabulation, qualified candidates were shown
as disqualified in the written examination and debarred
from attending subsequent tests for no fault of them. In
order to set right the things, these 29 candidates were
called to attend subsequent tests in second batch. This
inadvertent error was detected by the RCCF, Baripada. No
sooner the error was detected, the RCCF, Baripada
rectified the said error by preparing a revised score-sheet.
Therefore, two different score-sheets (of all candidates) had
been prepared by the RCCF, Baripada and they were
issued by the RCCF, Baripada on two different occasions.
The initial one was issued by the RCCF, vide memo
no.1797 dated 01.10.2011 communicated to the Divisional
Forest Officer, Karangia, whereas the latter one was issued
by the RCCF, Baripada, vide letter no.2334 dated
04.11.2011 communicated to the Divisional Forest Officer,
Karanjia.
8. The written test includes two subjects, i.e. Odia
and Mathematics, each carrying 25 marks as maximum.
As per Rules, 1998, petitioner-Rajanigandha Mohanta in
W.P.(C) No.21003 of 2014 was required to secure at least
50% marks in written test and petitioner-Sumitra Naik in
W.P.(C) No.20335 of 2014 was required to secure at least
40% of marks in order to qualify for the subsequent tests,
i.e., physical standard test, cycling test, walking test and
viva voce test. While shortlisting the names of successful
candidates from the score-sheet issued, vide memo
no.1797 dated 01.10.2011 of the RCCF, Baripada, it was
found that in the written test, petitioner-Rajanigandha
Mohanta in W.P.(C) No.21003 of 2014 secured 22.5 marks
out of 50 marks and petitioner-Sumitra Naik in W.P.(C)
No.20335 of 2014 secured 17 marks out of 50 marks, but
they were wrongly declared as "passed" in the written test,
instead of declaring them as failed, and were allowed to
appear in subsequent tests, i.e., physical standard test,
cycling test, walking test inadvertently. Since the
petitioners qualified in the physical standard test, cycling
test and walking test, they were allowed to appear in the
viva voce test also. Since there was gross error apparent
on the face of the records with regard to recording of
marks in the process of coding and de-coding of answer
sheets and the erroneous publication of result gave
advantage to the petitioners to appear in the subsequent
tests, even though they were not qualified in the initial test
of written test. When the inadvertent error was detected,
the RCCF, Baripada rectified the said error by preparing a
revised score-sheet. The detailed marks secured by each
of the petitioners, who filed O.As. before the Tribunal, are
given below:
Grace
Case No. Name of the applicant Oriya Math Total
Mark
O.A 779/12 Bindurekha Mohanta 02 15 03 20
O.A 771/12 Sumitra Naik 13 01 03 17
O.A. 772/12 Reena Patra 11 00 03 14
O.A. 773/12 Rajanigandha Mohanta 16.5 03 03 22.52
9. It is well settled in law that if a mistake is
committed by the authority, the same can be corrected
when it is brought to the notice.
10. "MISTAKE" is not mere forgetfulness; it is a
slip "made, not by design but, by mischance". Otherwise
also the "mistake" includes an error in conduct consisting
of an unintended failure to perform correctly and
effectively a task intended to be duly performed.
11. In West Bengal Electricity Board v. Patel
Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 682 : (2001) 2 SCC 451, the
apex Court held that a mistake may be unilateral or
mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it
ceases to be a mistake.
12. In Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Of
Trade Tax, U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 439, the apex Court held
that 'mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or
inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting it; it is an
error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception.
If an unconscious, ignorance and forgetfulness
of facts has been taken into consideration and
subsequently, it has been detected that a wrong has been
committed, the authority has got right to rectify the same.
In State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh and
Others, AIR 1964 SC 521, the apex Court held as follows:
"The respondents were officiating Tahasildar in
the erstwhile State of Pepsu. By notification
dated October 23, 1956 made by the Financial
Commissioner of Pepsu they were confirmed as
Tahasildars with immediate effect. No posts
were, however, available at that time in which
the respondents could be confirmed. The
Supreme Court held that there being no vacancy
in which the confirmation could take place, the
order of the Financial Commissioner confirming
the respondent as permanent Tahasildars must
be held to be wholly void. It was further held
that where a Government servant has no right to
a post or to particular status, though an
authority under the Government acting beyond
its competence had purported to give that person
a status which it was not entitled to give, he will
not in law be deemed to have been validly
appointed to the post or given the particular
status."
In case of Sundar Lal and others v. State of
Punjab (1970) S.L.R. 59, a Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court held as follows:
"If owning to some bona fide mistake the
Government has taken a decision regarding
confirmation of an officer, it can certainly revise
its decision at a subsequent stage, when the
mistake comes to its notice."
In case of K.B. Sharma v. Transport
Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1968 Allahabad, 276 the Court
held as follows:-
"An order of confirmation, if passed under some
mistake, could certainly be revised with a view
to correct the mistake and that such a revision
even if it might affect the person confirmed
earlier, could by no means attract article 331 of
the Constitution."
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Sri
Udayanath Jena v. State of Orissa represented by the
Director of Health Services, Orissa and others, 1974(1)
C.W.R. 587.
Therefore, any mistake or error can be corrected
at any point of time and the publication of the 2nd revised
list is not a bar.
13. An important feature was brought to the notice
of this Court that in the instant case there was awarding
of grace mark of "3", which is de hors the Rules, 1998. It is
submitted that all the 416 candidates, who appeared in
the written test, had been awarded with grace mark of "3"
so as to bring at least three times of candidates within the
zone of consideration against the existing vacancy of 28.
The procedure adopted is not in accordance with the
Rules, 1998. By awarding grace mark, some unqualified
candidates have been qualified and, as such, the same is
de hors the Rules, 1998. However, by deducting or
withdrawing the grace mark of "3", which was awarded to
the candidates, the petitioners' grievance cannot be
redressed, as they have not secured the qualifying marks
in the written test. Therefore, preparation of second select
list cannot be said to be illegal.
14. In course of hearing, in W.P.(C) No.20335 of
2014, this Court made a query on 02.05.2022 to the
following effect:-
"2. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Additional
Government Advocate seeks time to obtain
instructions when one written test was
conducted by the authority for the post of Forest
Guards on 25.09.2011, as to why there are two
separate lists prepared in Annexure-3 and
Annexure-7.
3. Put up this matter after two weeks."
15. On 17.05.2022, this Court passed the following
order:-
"2. Mr. S.N.Nayak, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel seeks time to file counter affidavit.
3. put up this matter after the ensuring Summer
Vacation. Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed
in the meantime."
16. This Court in W.P.(C) No.20335 of 2014, on
23.06.2022, passed the following order:-
"This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. In compliance of the order dated 02.05.2022, an
additional affidavit has been filed by Assistant
Conservator of forests, Karanjia Forest Division,
paragraphs-6 & 7 whereof reads thus:
"6. That is humbly submitted that the
pursuant to notification dated 24.08.2011 of
the Opp. Party No.2, the petitioner applied for
the post of Forest Guards in respect of
Karanjia Forest Division. On 25.09.2011, the
petitioner along with others appeared in the
written test conducted by the Opp. Party No.4
In the written test, activities like setting of
question papers, selection of examination
centers, selection of Centre Superintendent
and Invigilators, evaluation of answer sheets
had been discharged by the Regional Chief
Conservator of Forest, Baripada Circle in
accordance with the provisions laid down
under rule 14(d) (iv) of the Odisha Subordinate
Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Services of Forest Guards)
Rules,1998. Prior to the process of evaluation
front page of answer sheet ( carrying the bio-
data of the candidates) had been replaced
with code-tags which was adopted by the
Regional Chief Conservator of Forests,
Baripada Circle for fair practice and after
evaluation, the answer sheets were decoded.
Thereafter, the Regional Chief Conservator of
Forests and Field Director, Similipal Tiger
Reserve, Baripada has sent the list of Roll
Numbers and Marks Sheet secured by the
Forest Guard vide Letter No.1797 (7) dated
01.10.2011 to the office of the Opp. Party No.4
for display in the notice board of the
candidates qualified in the notice board of the
candidates qualified in the written test. Xerox
copy of Letter No. 1797(7), dated 01.10.2011
is filed herewith as Annexure -A/4 Series.
Accordingly, basing on the report vide
Annexure - A/4 Series of the Regional Chief
Conservator of Forests and Field Director,
Similipal Tiger Reserve, Baripada , the office
of the Opp. Party No.4 prepared list of
qualified candidates and displayed in the
notice board signed on dt. 02.10.2011
(Annexure-3).
7. That is humbly submitted that as there
was certain error occurred inadvertently
during the process of coding/decoding of
answer sheets and tabulation of marks, the
Regional Chief Conservator of Forests and
Field Director, Similipal tiger Reserve,
Baripada no sooner rectified the error and
prepared a revised score sheet and send the
same to the Office of the Opp. Party No.4 vide
Letter No. 2334 dt. 04.11.2011. Xerox copy of
Letter no. 2334, dated 04.11.2011 is filed
herewith as Annexure - B/4 Series.
Accordingly, basing on the report vide
Annexure-B/4 Series, the Opp. Party no.4
prepared the second list and published the
same on dt. 17.11.2011 (Annexure-7) and
displayed in the notice board.
It is further humbly submitted that due to
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, two
separate notices have been published vide
Annexure-3 and Annexure-7 respectively to
the writ petition. "
3. Reasons have been assigned for publishing
the revised score sheet in paragraph-7 stating that
there was "certain error occurred inadvertently
during the process of coding/decoding of answer
sheets and tabulation of marks, the Regional Chief
Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Similipal
Tiger Reserve, Baripada no sooner rectified the error
and prepared a revised score sheet and send the
same to the office of opposite party no.4 vide letter
dated 04.11.2011". Merely saying that the error
occurred inadvertently during the process of
coding/decoding of answer sheets and tabulation of
marks cannot suffice the purpose. The candidates,
who have qualified in the written test, cycling test
and viva voce test, should not suffer for the action of
an erring officer.
4. Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State seeks time to obtain
instructions in the matter.
5. Put up this matter after one week."
17. In compliance of the order dated 02.05.2022,
Assistant Conservator of Forests, in the Office of DFO,
Karanjia Forest Division, filed an affidavit on 21.04.2023
stating the following facts:-
3) That in reply to the Order dated
02.05.2022 of Hon'ble Court it is humbly
submitted that,
(a) During the course of compilation of 1st
mark sheet (Annexure-3) certain errors accrued
inadvertently in de-coding of answer papers and
tabulation of marks done by date entry operator
which was detected by the Regional Chief
Conservator of Forest and Field Director,
Similipal Tiger Reserve, Baripada.
(b) Due to representation furnished by
1.Kaushalaya Hembram and 2. Kumari Zatri
Naik, (copy enclosed) all the answer papers were
cross-checked and found that some mistakes
were detected in decoding the answer papers
and tabulatiob sheet which was done by the
Data Entry Operator office of the then Data
Entry Operator office of the Director Regional
Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director,
Similipal Tigre Reserve, Baripada for which the
marks were cross-checked with the answer
sheet. The errors were rectified and the revised
mark list was published on dt.04.11.2011 of 29
nos. candidates as Annexure-7 by the DFO,
Karanjia.
Copies of the representation furnished
by Kaushalya Hembram and Kumari Zatri
Naik are annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-A/4 and ANNEXURE-B/4
respectively.
It is further humbly submitted that all exercises
in connection with conducting written
examination, evaluation and publication of result
have been done by the then Regional Chief
Conservator of Forests and Field Director,
Similipal Tiger Reserve, Baripada and the errors
has been rectified by the same officer for natural
justice. At present he has already been retired
from Govt. Service.
(c) In this context, Law is well settled that a
wrong or mistake can be corrected and rectified
at any point of time or at any stage, we do not
find any malafides in the action of the
respondents. As the applicant has not secured
the qualifying mark in the written test, she is not
eligible to appear in subsequent tests."
18. In view of the facts and law, as discussed above,
since W.P.(C) No.19803 of 2014 filed by Bindu Rekha
Mohanta was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to
the petitioner to file an application within thirty days from
the date of passing of the order for revival of the said writ
petition in case of any difficulty and such application
having not been filed by the said writ petitioner, the
impugned common order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the
Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack,
in O.A. No.770(C) of 2012 and batch reached its finality.
So far as present writ petitions are concerned, once the
common order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Tribunal
has been upheld in W.P.(C) No.19803 of 2014 and, as
such, on the basis of facts and law discussed above, this
Court does not find any error on the face of the record and
also does not find any mala fide intention on the part of
the State-opposite parties so as to cause interference with
the impugned common order dated 17.07.2014 passed by
the Tribunal in O.A. No.770(C) of 2012 and batch under
Annexure-12, rather the petitioners having not secured
qualifying marks in the written examintion, even if
inadvertently appeared in the subsequent examinations,
that itself will not enure any right in favour of the
petitioners to be selected and appointed as Forest Guards,
as the same would be de hors the Rules, 1998.
19. Thus, both the writ petitions merit no
consideration and the same are hereby dismissed.
However, under the facts and circumstances, there shall
be no order as to costs.
..............................
DR. B.R.SARANGI,
JUDGE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
..............................
M.S. RAMAN,
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 29th August, 2023, Alok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:42:51
