Orissa High Court
Badhuli Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 24141 of 2023
Badhuli Biswal ..... Petitioner
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr.J. Biswal, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Nayak, ASC
(O.P.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
07.08.2023
W.P.(C) No.24141 of 2023
And
I.A. No.11564 of 2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel along
with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the State-opposite party no.1.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
direction to opposite party no.2 to declare the petitioner as
qualified/successful in the preliminary written examination
and to allow her to appear in the main written examination of
Odisha Judicial Service 2022-23.
4. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that the N.B attached to Plan of
Examination of recruitment to the posts of Odisha Judicial
Service, 2022 issued by opposite party no.2-OPSC states that
the Commission shall call the eligible candidates for main
written examination, who have secured not less than 35
(thirty-five) per-centum of marks in case of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe candidates and 40(forty) per-centum of
marks in case of others in the preliminary written examination.
It is contended that since there are errors in the evaluation
system, the petitioner has not been called upon to appear in the
written examination of Odisha Judicial Service 2022-23. It is
further contended that the note attached to Interview states that
any details relating to the recruitment like cut-off marks,
answer keys, individual marks etc, shall only be declared on
the website of the Commission after publication of the final
result and select list. The petitioner could not be able to get
time to ventilate her grievance before the Commission to
substantiate her correct marks as against the questions in
respect of which the Commission has taken different answers
for which the petitioner could not come out successful. To
substantiate his contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Madhumala Bisoyee v. Odisha Public Service Commission
(2015(II) OLR 413.
5. Issue notice to the opposite parties both in main case and
Interlocutory Application.
6. One extra copy of the writ petition be served within
three days on learned Additional Standing Counsel, as he
appears for opposite party no. 1 to enable him to obtain
instructions or file counter affidavit.
7. Requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2
by speed post shall be filed within three days. Office shall
send notice to the said opposite party fixing a short returnable
date.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 08-Aug-2023 11:36:49
