Orissa High Court
Umakanta Chhotaray vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.21 of 2020
Umakanta Chhotaray .... Petitioner
Ms. B. K. Pattanaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 02.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the validity of the impugned order dated 11th November,
2019 as at Annexure-8 and to direct the opposite parties to
appoint him as an Assistant Driver having participated in the
selection process and to release all service and
consequential benefits in his favour upon such appointment
on the grounds inter alia that the decision of opposite party
No.2 is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered
with and set aside.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are
that an advertisement was published by opposite party No.3
to fill up 437 posts of Assistant Driver stipulating therein
the eligibility criteria. A copy of the advertisement is at
Annexure-1, referring to which, it is pleaded by the
petitioner that he being an SEBC category candidate applied
to be considered for appointment as Assistant Driver and
although found to be meritorious, some of the candidates of
the UR category securing less marks were selected with the
merit list finally published as per Annexure-2. It is further
claimed by the petitioner that information under the RTI Act
was applied to him and it was furnished vide Annexure-3
and with such information received, it is alleged that on the
face of record, illegality has been committed denying him
the appointment, inasmuch as, the select list could not have
been prepared in the manner contemplated. It is further
claimed that the SEBC candidates secured more marks than
the candidates of UR category but have not been selected,
since, the petitioner secured 46.5 marks higher than the cut-
off mark for the UR candidates. Against such selection and
merit list prepared and as the petitioner was not successful,
the same has been questioned.
3. In fact, the advertisement to fill up the posts of Assistant
Driver in Odisha Police Motor Transport was published in
the year 2013 and the result was declared on 17th November,
2013 but, some of the Home Guard candidates filed O.A.
No.3931(C) of 2013 in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal
with a plea of 10% horizontal reservation having not been
applied and while implementing the order dated 7th May,
2014 passed therein, number of candidates earlier selected
were terminated from service in the year 2015 on the ground
that they had availed age and fee relaxation. Thereafter,
O.A. No.4308(C) of 2014 was filed and disposed of with the
select list being quashed followed by a direction to redraw
the same. In compliance of the directions issued in the said
O.A., a revised select list was published on 8th April, 2016,
wherein, 71 candidates were included with 55 candidates
being delisted. According to the petitioner, even after
redrawal of the revised select list, some of the candidates,
who secured less marks than him were allowed to continue
but he was not, despite a representation to opposite party
No.2, who rejected it on the ground that the marks scored by
him to be less than the cut-off mark for SEBC candidates.
4. The additional claim is that the selection process has not
been accomplished in accordance with law. In fact,
according to the petitioner, relaxation of age and fee are no
relaxation as held by the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar
Singh and another Vrs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 3
SCC 119, wherein, it has been observed that despite such
relaxation, a reserved category candidate shall have to be
considered against the posts earmarked for the unreserved
and hence, eligible for open competition and in one of such
cases, where a candidate of UR category secured less marks
following a decision in W.P.(C) No.4101 of 2019, it has
been confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.21074 of
2019 dismissing it on 5th June, 2020, whereafter, he again
filed W.P.(C) No.20783 of 2022 disposed of on 29 th
September, 2022 with a direction to appoint him and was
finally appointed on 17th November, 2022 and in another
case, a similar direction has been issued in W.P.(C) No.9439
of 2024 by order dated 25th September, 2024 at Annexure-7.
Under the above circumstances, the petitioner demands that
he should have been selected and hence, the decision by
order at Annexure-8 of opposite party No.2 is required to be
interfered with in the interest of justice.
5. On the contrary, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 opposed the
plea of the petitioner and filed the counter affidavit stating
therein that the petitioner secured 46.5 marks less than the
cut-off mark for SEBC category. It is also pleaded that after
completion of selection, a select list of 397 candidates was
published, out of which, 38 posts for ST category and 2
posts of UR category remained vacant due to non-
availability of suitable candidates. According to the counter,
in view of the order in O.A. No.3931(C) of 2013, a fresh
merit list was prepared to provide 10% horizontal
reservation meant for the Home Guards and accordingly, 44
candidates were selected and some of the candidates earlier
included in the list had to be disengaged and discharged
from service. It is stated that the revised list was once again
directed to be freshly drawn following the order in O.A.
No.4308(C) of 2014 as per the ratio decided in Jitendra
Kumar Singh (supra) and therein, the petitioner could not
find a place as he secured 46.5 marks against the cut-off
mark of 48 for SEBC category and 49 marks for UR
candidates. A copy of the select list as at Annexure-A/3
(series) is referred to by the opposite parties to plead that
there has been no illegality committed by opposite party
No.2 in rejecting the representation of the petitioner as per
Annexure-C/3 (the same as Annexure-8). In reply to the
same, rejoinder affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating
the facts already pleaded with the claim that age relaxation
is not a bar and a candidate of any reserved category is to be
considered for selection in open competition. The plea is
predominantly based on a claim that the petitioner, since
secured more marks than some UR category candidates,
who have been absorbed following the Court's orders, he
being similarly situated, could have been considered for
appointment.
6. Heard Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
7. Admittedly, the advertisement as per Annexure-1 was
published to fill up the posts of Assistant Driver. Since, 10%
horizontal reservation was not applied, the select list was
quashed by an order in O.A. No.3931(C) of 2014 and a
revised one was prepared. Once again, the said list was
questioned by some candidates, who were removed from
service and at last, pursuant to the order in O.A. No.4314
(C) of 2014 and batch of cases, the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal set aside the termination orders and directed their
reinstatement in service and also to prepare a fresh merit list
following the principles decided in Jitendra Kumar Singh
(supra). A re-revised select list was finally prepared on 8th
April, 2016 and therein, 71 candidates were included with
55 candidates stood excluded. The aforesaid lists are at
Annexures-4 and 5. Initially leading to the revision of the
selection and once again the select list being redrawn, there
has been inclusion and exclusion of candidates therefrom
and in the meanwhile, the petitioner approached opposite
party No.2 with a representation i.e. Annexure-6 but as
earlier stated, it was not disposed of and hence, he had to
file O.A. No.1470(C) of 2019 with an order therein dated
26th July, 2019 as at Annexure-7 passed, whereafter, it led to
the passing of the rejection order i.e. Annexure-8 on the
premise that the marks secured by him is less than the cut-
off mark fixed for SEBC and also UR category.
8. The revised list was prepared and it was followed by a
final list pursuant to the order in O.A. No.4314(C) of 2014
and batch of cases by following the decisions of the Apex
Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) and R.K.
Sabharwal and others Vrs. State of Punjab and others
(1995) 2 SCC 745 and therein, the petitioner did not find
place and as per Annexure-8, it was for the reason that he
scored less marks than the cut-off mark pegged at for SEBC
and UR category candidates. The question is, whether, any
illegality has been committed by opposite party No.2, while
dealing with the representation of the petitioner consequent
to the order in O.A. No.1470(C) of 2019?
9. Law is well settled that vertical and horizontal
reservations are to be applied in the manner the law
prescribes. The selection with such reservations is to be
carried out in the following manner, such as, first of all, an
open merit list is to be prepared in respect of each category
and thereafter, to find out as to how many candidates
belonging to the special reservations (horizontal) to have
been selected and if the number is less, then such number of
horizontal reservation candidates as per the quota are to be
adjusted/accommodated against respective vertical
reservation by deleting the corresponding number of non-
reserved candidates therefrom. If the quota fixed for the
horizontal reservation is already satisfied, no further
question of selection would arise. If such an exercise is not
undertaken, it would be in deviation of the reservation rules.
It is also a settled law that if a reserved category candidate is
selected on merit against UR vacancies, the entire
reservation quota shall remain available for such reserved
candidates in addition to the candidates selected under the
open competition as has been held by the Apex Court in
Indra Sawhney and others Vrs. Union of India and
others 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; R.K. Sabharwal (supra);
Union of India Vrs. Veerpal Singh Chowhan (1995) 6
SCC 684; and reiterated in Ritesh R. Sah Vrs. Dr. Y.L
Yamul and others (1996) 3 SCC 253.
10. The moot question is, whether, any error has been
committed by opposite party No.2 in the preparation of the
re-revised select list? According to the petitioner, the
selection is not in accordance with law as he scored more
marks but left out from the select list and some of the
candidates with less marks secured are still in service. The
primary ground of challenge is with a plea that the petitioner
was to be included in the select list as he was initially found
to have scored more marks than some of the UR category
candidates. But, the fact remains, the original select was set
aside leading to the preparation of a revised one. Not only
that, the said list was further revised and redrawn. With the
aforesaid development having taken place, the Court is to
examine, whether, any such plea of the petitioner
demanding selection still survive?
11. The objection of the opposite parties is that the
petitioner could not have been picked up as he secured less
mark and below the cut-off marks of SEBC and UR
category candidates. The original list was revised since
horizontal reservation was not applied. Such list had to be
redrawn as some of the candidates claiming age relaxation
were not selected despite having scored more marks than the
UR category candidates and confined to the respective
reserved categories. Such an exercise at last resulted in the
preparation of the final select list and under such
circumstances, the Court is of the humble view that the
petitioner's plea is no more acceptable as he was found to
have secured less marks and below the cut-off mark fixed
for SEBC and UR candidates. A candidate may be picked
up provided he is found suitable either as a candidate
selected through open competition or against the reserved
vacancies. Admittedly, the petitioner could not qualify with
the select list revised for the reason that he scored 46.5
marks, whereas, the cut-off marks for SCBC & UR
categories stood at 48 and 49 respectively. It is not that the
petitioner demands selection availing any horizontal
reservation. In that case, the petitioner had to compete
against the UR category candidates in open competition or
else at least, was to secure marks more than the cut-off fixed
for the SEBC category. Since, the petitioner failed in both
despite a request as per Annexure-6 and order of the learned
Tribunal in O.A. No.1470(C) of 2019 to consider the plea,
the Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.2 did
not commit any error or illegality, while complying the
directions issued therein as per Annexure-7 with a decision
at last vide Annexure-8. In other words, the impugned
decision of opposite party No.2 having rejected the
representation of the petitioner by order dated 11th
November, 2019 as at Annexure-8 does not suffer from any
infirmity as there has been revision of the select list
complying the reservation rules and keeping in view the
principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case laws
referred to herein before. That apart, nothing is shown on
record to demonstrate any such non-compliance.
Furthermore, continuation of some other candidates claimed
to be similarly situated like the petitioner is found to be
under the circumstances narrated as made to reveal from the
State's response on record, hence, it cannot be a ground to
demand equal treatment.
12. Accordingly, it is ordered.
13. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Oct-2025 19:24:21
