Orissa High Court
Ashwini Ku. Patra vs Rashmi Ranjan .... Opposite Parties on 6 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.225 of 2015
Ashwini Ku. Patra .... Petitioners
& Anr.
Mr. J.K. Lenka, Adv.
-versus-
Rashmi Ranjan .... Opposite Parties
Nayak & Ors. Proxy Counsel
appearing on behalf of
Mr. S.D. Das, Sr.
Advocate for P.P. Trust
Authority
Mr.S.K. Purohit, Adv. for
O.P.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
06.11.2025
Order No.
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing
of the review petition is condoned.
4. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
// 2 //
13. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
2. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review
of the order dtd.18.08.2015 so passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.21058 and 21122 of 2012.
3. It is the case of the review petitioner that in the
advertisement issued by the Paradip Port Trust
Authority on 16.03.2012 under Annexure-7 to the Writ
Petition inviting application to fill up the backlog
vacancies of different posts under special recruitment
drive, though there was no provisions to award any
extra mark towards experience if any, but this Court
while disposing Writ Petition vide judgment
dtd.18.08.2015 when directed the Paradip Port Trust
Authority to prepare a merit list afresh taking into
account the educational qualification, experience and
preferential qualification of the candidate, the
authorities of Paradip Port Trust, awarded extra mark
towards experience of the candidates, who had made
their applications pursuant to advertisement.
4. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in the
advertisement, learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioner contended that in the advertisement there is
no such provision to award any extra mark for
candidates having any experience. But in view of the
order passed by this Court on 18.08.2015, while making
the selection since candidates were provided with extra
// 3 //
mark towards their experience as on 31.12.2011 @ 2
marks per year or part, the Review Petitioner was
deprived from the purview of selection.
4.1. It is contended that in Para-6 of the advertisement
for the post of Lascar Grade-II, the prescribed
qualification was as follows:-
(1) Passed HSC Examination or its equivalent,
(2) should know swimming and boat rowing.
(3) Preferences will be given to the candidates
having passed pre-sea training for seaman / G.P.
rating from a Govt. recognized Institution.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioner contended that in the advertisement, there
was no stipulation to award any extra mark towards
experience. But this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition since directed to prepare a fresh merit list
taking into consideration the educational qualification,
experience and preferential qualification, the selection
was made afresh by awarding marks towards
experience.
It is accordingly contended that the direction of
this Court in its judgment dtd.18.08.2015 to take into
consideration the experience and consequential award of
marks towards experience by the authorities of Paradip
Port Trust vitiated the selection process.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Paradip Port
Trust also contended that basing on the order passed on
18.08.2015 while making the selection afresh, extra
// 4 //
mark was given @ 2 marks per year or part towards
experience of the candidates in the proceeding
dtd.10.02.2016. (Copy of the proceeding dtd.10.02.2016
so produced in Court be kept in record).
6. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1
/ Writ Petitioner on the other hand contended that on
the face of the order passed on 18.08.2015, Opposite
Party No.1 has not yet got the benefit of appointment.
However, it is fairly contended that selection process be
finalized in accordance with the provisions contained in
the advertisement dtd.16.03.2012.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, since it
is found from the advertisement that there was no
provision to give any extra mark towards experience, it
is the view of this Court that the order passed by this
Court in its judgment dtd.18.08.2015 to make the
selection taking into account the experience is contrary
to the stipulation contained in the advertisement.
7.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash that part
of the direction wherein direction was issued to take into
consideration experience as a condition precedent and
mark awarded on that count by the Selection
Committee. While quashing the direction contained in
its judgment dtd.18.08.2015 to take into consideration
experience, this Court dispose of the Review Petition by
directing the Paradip Port Trust Authority to finalize the
selection process as against the post of Lascar Grade-II
// 5 //
strictly in terms of the advertisement and without taking
into account the experience of any of the candidates
with award of any mark. Qualification and tranining
available at the time of making the application, will only
be taken into consideration, while making the selection.
Since the advertisement is of the year 2012, and more
than 13 years have passed, it is expected that Paradip
Port Trust Authority shall do well to complete the
selection process as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of three (3) months from today.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Review Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
