Pramod Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11445 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.9512 of 2018

            Pramod Kumar Sahoo                       ....           Petitioner

                                 Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate
                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha and others               ....     Opposite Parties

                                   Mr. A.K. Nanda, Addl. Govt. Advocate
                                             Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
                          Mr. J.K. Rath, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
                         Mr. B. Routray, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

                    CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                 JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                         ORDER

21.09.2023 Order No. 29 1. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of the High Court. He relies on

judgments of the Supreme Court, firstly in Civil Appeal nos.2164-

2172 of 2023 in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. the State of

Jammu and Kashmir and others available at 2023 Live Law (SC)

253, paragraph 13.1. The paragraph is reproduced below.

"13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to

// 2 //

a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.

Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."

(emphasis supplied)

2. He next relies on Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar,

reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, paragraph 16. The paragraph is

reproduced below.

"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High

// 3 //

Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K. A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines."

(emphasis supplied)

3. Mr. Nanda then submits on fact, which reference to paragraph

8 in the counter. A passage therefrom is reproduced below.

"Further, in reply to the claim of the petitioner of having unblemished service career, it is humbly submitted that allegations for collecting money illegally from the litigants, mis-use of official position for personal gain etc. were received against him in the Court. That apart, the petitioner, the then Secretary to Hon'ble Kumari Justice S. Panda, was let off with a warning in D.P. No.1/2012."

On query from Court made upon noticing petitioner in his rejoinder

asserted, inter alia, that D.P. no.1 of 2012 was regarding petitioner

having been charge-sheeted on allegation that he typed out a wrong

order in the order sheet, Mr. Nanda prays for adjournment to produce

documents to show warning was issued on allegations made regarding

petitioner's doubtful integrity.

4. Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of

petitioner reiterates reliance on the High Court rules to submit,

// 4 //

petitioner did not receive censure, a punishment mentioned under rule

17. He also reiterates reliance on Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for

Promotion) Rules, 1992, to clause (c) under rule 3 to submit, for

purpose of ascertaining merit, scrutiny of preceding five available

Annual Confidential Character Rolls (CCR) stand provided. Impugned

DPC was much after five years of D.P. no.1, held in year 2012.

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of private

opposite parties. On query from Court he submits, he is supporting

contentions of State and may be permitted to submit later, if necessary.

6. State has liberty to rely on documents, to be produced on

adjourned date upon advance copies circulated to petitioner.

7. Mr. Rath and Mr. Routray both learned senior advocates,

appointed as amicus curiae by coordinate Bench also appear.

8. List on 4th October, 2023.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Jyoti

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 21-Sep-2023 18:03:57