disposed of by the present common order. However, for the sake of
convenience, W.P.(C) No. 29302 of 2025 was taken as the leading
case, so far as pleadings and documents are concerned.
2. All these writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging order
Commission (in short Commission). Vide such a common order
3. Mr. B. Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in
the batch of writ petitions along with other learned Sr. Counsels as
the Commission issued an advertisement vide Advertisement No. II-
Forester and 1677 posts for Forest Guard. Requisite qualification for
A) Age & Educational Qualification: -
// 4 //
(i) The minimum and the maximum age, educational qualification of the
candidates for the posts shall be as mentioned below:
Post wise Age and Educational Qualification
Sl Name of Minimum Educational Qualification Age
No. the Post
1 Livestock The candidate must have passed the The
Inspector +2 Vocational Courses in the field of candidate
Animal Husbandry or Dairy or must have
Poultry or Meat or Animal Production attained
or +2 Science from a recognised the age of
Educational Institution or Board or 18 years
Council or University and the Gomitra and must
candidates must have passed +2 not be
Science or +2 Vocational Courses in above the
the allied Animal Husbandry activities age of 38
with satisfactory performance in years as
Artificial Insemination(A.I.) activities on 1"
for three years under National Project January
for Cattle and Buffalo 2023.
Breeding(NPCBB).
2 Forester The candidate must have passed +2
Science from recognized university,
Institution or Board as the case may
be with knowledge in basic Computer
skills.
3 Forest The candidate must have passed High
Guard School Certificate Examination (10+)
from recognized Board or Institution.
• Date of birth as recorded in the HSC certificate issued by the Board of
Secondary Education, Odisha or equivalent certificate issued by any
recognized Board/Council/Indian University shall only be accepted.
• The candidate must have the prescribed minimum educational
qualification as on the closing date of submission of online application.
10. Plan of examination:
The Combined Recruitment Examination shall consist of the following
stages.
A) Written Test:
// 5 //
There shall be a Written Test of 150 marks (MCQ type in OMR
System) in one paper as detailed below:
Paper Subjects of No. of Maximum Time
Written Test questions Marks
Arithmetic 25 25 2½ ours
One Knowledge
Knowledge
Science
Note:
(i) The Written Test shall be of the standard of 10th High School Certificate
Examination.
(ii) In the Written Test, there shall be negative marking @0.50 mark per question
for wrong/multiple answers.
(iii)In the Written Test, the minimum qualifying marks for ST, SC, PWD, Ex-
Servicemen and Sportsperson category of candidates shall be 30% and the
minimum qualifying marks for candidates other than ST, SC, PWD, Ex-
Servicemen and Sportsperson categories shall be 35%. The minimum qualifying
marks for Gomitra candidates only shall be 20%.
B) Physical Test:
Candidates shall be shortlisted/screened @ 3 times, the number of vacancies
advertised category/special category wise as per merit on the basis of the
performance in Written Test (marks secured / awarded) and the candidates so
screened shall be called for Physical Test.
There shall be Physical Test comprising of Physical Standard Measurement
(PSM) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of
Livestock Inspector, Forester and Forest Guard.
The Physical Test shall be conducted at the District Headquarters.
// 6 //
(I) Physical Standard Measurement Test (PSM):
All eligible candidates shall have to appear the Physical Standard Measurement
(PSM) Test before the District Level Selection Board for Physical Test constituted
for the purpose la the respective districts for which they have applied to appear
for Written Test in their application.
The candidate must possess the following minimum physical standard of Height
and Chest. Those who do not qualify in any of the physical measurement tests of
Height or Chest, shall not be allowed to participate in any further test in the
recruitment process.
(a) The candidates for Livestock Inspector must have the minimum physical
standard of Height and Chest, as detailed below:
Category Height Chest
Male candidates of UR/SEBC 5'2" Unexpanded 30"
category
Male candidates SC/ST 5' Unexpanded 30"
category
Female candidates of all 5'
categories
(b) The candidates for Forester/Forest Guard must have the minimum physical
standard of Height and Chest, as detailed below:
Minimum
Height (in Minimum Chest (in cm)
Category cm)
Un-expanded Expanded
Men UR/SEBC/SC 168 81 Up to 5 cm
ST 158 81 Up to 5 cm
Provided that candidates having color blindness shall be deemed to be a
disqualification for the posts of Forester and Forest Guard.
(II) Physical Efficiency Test (PET):
The candidates who qualify in the Physical Standard Measurement (PSM) Tests
mentioned above, shall be required to appear at the Physical Efficiency Test
(PET). Before undergoing PET, each candidate must submit an undertaking in the
prescribed format to the effect that he/she is fit and willing to undergo the same at
// 7 //
his/her own risks and responsibilities. The authority conducting such tests shall
not be held responsible for any injury or loss sustained during or after the tests.
The PET shall comprise of the following events which are qualifying in nature.
(a) Male/Female candidate for the post of Livestock Inspector (All Categories)
Sl. Type of Physical Efficiency Remarks
No. Test
(i) Cycling The candidate must have
knowledge of Cycling
(b) Male candidate for the post of Forester/Forest Guard (All Categories)
Sl. Type of Physical Efficiency Qualifying distance/time
No. Test
(i) Walking 25 kms. In 4 hours
Female candidates for the post of Forester/Forest Guard (All Categories)
Sl. Type of Physical Efficiency Remarks
No. Test
(i) Walking 16 kms. In 4 hours
3.1. It is contended that the Commission in terms of the advertisement
conducted the written test on different dates beginning from
24.04.2024 and ending on 07.05.2024, in Computer Based
Recruitment Examination (in short CBRE), in 95 different centers
across the State of Odisha.
3.2. It is contended that the Commission initially published the
provisional screening list of 8496 candidates on 03.09.2024 declaring
them to have qualified in the written examination. Even though the
present Petitioners qualified in the written examination and were in
the list of 8496 qualified candidates, but the Commission out of those
// 8 //
8496 candidates, allowed 8159 candidates to appear the physical test
and the rest 337 candidates, which includes the present Petitioners
were debarred to appear the physical test.
3.3. It is contended that after debarring such 337 candidates from
appearing the physical test, the Commission issued a common show-
cause to all those 337 candidates on 19.02.2025 inter alia with the
following contents: -
"A number of allegations have been received regarding
adoption of unfair means during the Combined Recruitment
Examination - 2023 (II) held between 24th April to 07th May,
2024 in CBRE mode by some undeserving candidates having
very poor academic records and poor performance in the
previous recruitment examination conducted by the
Commission. Your answer sheet has been examined. Analysis
reveals that you have secured unexpectedly very high score in
the Written Test under CRE-2023 (II) which appears to be
incongruent with your academic records.
You are, therefore, called upon to show cause in writing to the
Commission explaining as to why action as deemed proper
under Rule-18 of Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection
Commission (District Cadre) Rules, 2012 shall not be taken
against you for adopting unfair means by violating the
instructions contained in the Admission Letter for the Written
Test in the Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 (II) for the
posts of Livestock Inspector, Forester and Forest Guard.
Your show cause reply to this notice should reach this
Commission by email/Regd post latest by 15.03.2025. In case
// 9 //
you fail to submit your reply in writing within the specified date
as mentioned above, it will be construed that you have nothing
to explain in your defence and decision as deemed fit will be
taken against you by the Commission"
3.4. It is contended that such a show-cause was issued to all the 337
candidates including the present Petitioners and that too after
publication of the written examination result on 03.09.2024, basing on
the minutes of the meeting held on 08.10.2024 under Annexure-7 so
communicated by the Govt. in the G.A. & P.G. Department vide letter
dtd.17.10.2024 and notification issued by the self-same Department
on 25.10.2024 under Annexure-8 and letter dtd.13.02.2025 under
Annexure-9.
3.5. It is contended by the learned counsels appearing for the Parties
that the Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary in the minutes of
the meeting dtd.08.10.2024 took various decisions after demand was
made by various candidates /general people for cancellation of the
recruitment examination, so conducted by the Commission pursuant to
the advertisement dtd.20.10.2023. However, the Committee in the said
meeting while dealing with the complaints made by some
students/candidates/general people, came to a conclusion that the
Commission has not received any report from any observer/district
administration, regarding dislocation in conducting the
// 10 //
RI/ARI/Amin/ICDS Supervisor/SFS preliminary examination;
excepting a lone incident of SSB Edutech (Nayapalli, BBSR) where,
only on 30.09.2024, the first batch examination was started late by an
hour or so, due to some local server problem and that also led to
delayed start of 2nd ad 3rd batch of the examination. The committee
after coming to such a conclusion, also took various decisions and the
decision so taken, reads as follows:-
"(6) The matter was discussed in great detail, including pros and
cons of CBT mode examination and conventional pen/paper
examination, and following decisions were taken.
(a) LI/Forester/Forest Guard Examination (conducted in April-
May 2024)
• Physical test, scheduled on 18-21 Oct' 2024, should be deferred till
a thorough analysis of session wise/ centre wise marks obtained by
students is done. This should be completed in a weeks time.
• In view of some specific allegation received by OSSSC about
candidates having very poor academic credentials scoring 100
percentile mark, Eduquity should put up the analysis of the entire
raw score data of candidates in comparison with their earlier
scores available to detect glaring anomaly, if any.
• It should also cross-check the results as per NTA formula whether
any error had been committed while preparing the percentile mark
result already published.
(b) RI/ARI/Amin/ICDS Supervisor/SFS Examination (conducted in
Sept-Oct 2024)
// 11 //
• Candidates should be asked to lodge complaint/grievances, if they
wish to, in OSSSC website. Detailed modalities of receiving
complaints/grievance petitions through User Id & password of
candidates will be intimated to the candidates by OSSSC
separately.
• A high-level committee will be constituted at Government level to
inquire into such complaints/grievances and recommend suitable
action as deemed appropriate
• A press note should be released by GA&PG Department in this
light to assuage feelings of candidates agitating against the
examinations.
(C) For conducting CBTs in future:
CBTs, if conducted properly with all necessary checks and
balances, are much better and safer than conventional examination
in pen/paper mode; especially when number of candidates is in
lakhs. Accordingly, following things should be ensured for future
CBTs to be conducted by OSSSC.
(i) CBTs in future should be held only in Government (Central as
well as State) educational institutions and some reputed semi-
government institutions situated at/in district headquarters and
Municipal Corporations. E&IT Department/OCAC shall assist
State Government educational institutions financially and
technically to develop a capacity of 25,000 nodes (i.e. 25,000
candidates can take CBT examination in one batch). If such
capacity cannot be made in existing Government educational
institutions, E&IT Department/OCAC shall establish dedicated
Government CBT centres at district H.Qs/Municipal Corporations.
For this, E&IT Department shall make necessary budget provision.
OSSSC shall make payment to these centres for conduct of the
exams on a per candidate basis. These centres will also be used for
// 12 //
examinations conducted by other State and National Recruitment
agencies.
(ii) Secondly, examination centres developed by NTA/NRA or
Ministry of Higher Education, Government of India for conduct of
CBT examinations may also be considered for conduct of CBT
examinations by OSSSC..
(iii) OSSSC should also get in touch with NTA/NRA as well as SSC
for obtaining their SOPs for conduct of examinations especially
CBTs and incorporate the best features in their guidelines.
(iv) CBTs in future shall be conducted by OSSSC through
agencies/companies empanelled by NTA/NRA OCAC shall
maintain a list of such agencies /companies and shall also fix their
rate/fee for conducting CBTs.
(v) OCAC shall also empanel agencies/companies for undertaking
cyber forensic audit of computer nodes selected randomly (or on
complaint basis) during CBT examination.
(vi) OSSSC shall engage reputed institutions/organizations for
conducting third party audit of future CBTs wherein the scope of
work will include the entire gamut of conduct of CBT and
processing of result.
(vii) In future, to ensure that no undeserving candidate gets
selected for any Government job, OSSSC shall conduct all its
examinations (whether in CBT mode or in conventional mode)
where number of candidates exceed 50,000, in two-stage format,
i.e. Preliminary Examination followed by Main Examination.
(viii) As the above-mentioned two-stage examination system will
take longer time than single-stage examination system, examination
completion time-line of OSSSC needs to be shortened. In this
regard, proposal submitted by OSSSC to GASPG Department, vide
// 13 //
OSSSC letter No.685 (C)/OSSSC dt.20.07.2024, regarding doing
away with Computer Skill Test should be accepted by Government
for immediate necessary action.
(ix) To facilitate better functioning of OSSSC, GA&PG Department
should urgently man OSSSC with adequate staff at all levels and
approve its new building proposal (on the same land), with
modifications as deemed appropriate."
3.6. It is contended that thereafter in terms of the decision taken on
08.10.2024, a Committee was constituted to check the veracity of the
allegations made against the conduct of the examination, by the G.A.
& P.G. Departmental vide notification dtd.25.10.2024. The
Committee after going through the materials produced before it by the
Commission and the complaints made in that regard, came to the
following finding so reflected in Para 4 of the report dt.08.02.2025, so
communicated on 13.02.2025 under Annexure-9:-
"4. Concluding Remarks
The Expert Committee finds no large-scale irregularities in the
conduct of the CRE 2023(II) examination but has identified
Isolated instances of unusually high scores. The above analysis
identified 337 candidates (Table 16 of ANNEXURE 6) who
might have adopted unfair means in the examination. The
implementation of a qualifying test for these candidates may
help address these aberrations and reinforce the fairness of the
recruitment process."
// 14 //
3.7. Relying on the report of the Committee so available under
Annexure-9, it is vehemently contended that, since the Committee
finds no large scale irregularities in the conduct of the examination in
question, but only found isolated instances of unusually high scores of
the identified 337 candidates, basing on such finding, no such show-
cause could have been issued by the Commission, vide show-cause
notice dtd.19.02.2025.
3.8. It is also contended that since the Committee did not find any
large-scale irregularity in the conduct of the examination and only
identified 337 candidates, who might have adopted unfair means in
the examination, basing on such finding of the Committee, the show-
cause issued on 19.02.2025 by the Commission was challenged by the
present Petitioners in a batch of writ petitions.
It is further contended that in absence of any specific material
against those 337 candidates, basing on assumption, no view should
have been expressed basing on which the show-cause dt.19.02.2025
was issued.
3.9. In support of the same, reliance was placed to a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raja Ram vs. Jai Prakash Singh
// 15 //
& Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 701. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 18
of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"18. xxx xxx xxx
There can be no application of the law sans the facts of a
case. The primary ingredients of the law need to be first
established by proper pleading supported by relevant
evidence. Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or
presumptions.
xxx xxx xxx"
3.10. Reliance was placed to another decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Manohar Lal vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13860 of 2024). Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 31 of
the said judgment has held as follows:-
"The disciplinary authority proceeded on the
presumption of the ACP who conducted preliminary
enquiry without any material and concluded that holding
a regular enquiry is not reasonably practicable
Analysing the purport of the proviso and the
interpretation made in the judgment of Tulsiram Patel
(Supra) it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to
satisfy himself that such reasoning as indicated in the
preliminary enquiry report is based on some material,
sufficient to dispense with an enquiry. In absence of the
same, merely belief or a presumption is not sufficient to
record such finding and to deviate from the normal
procedure."
3.11. It is further contended that the ground on which the show-cause
was issued, does not come under the purview of Rule 18 of the Odisha
// 16 //
Sub-Ordinate Staff Selection Commission (District Cadre) Rules,
2012 and the show-cause so issued is also not coming under any of the
provisions so prescribed under Rule 18(i) to 18(xii). Rule 18 of the
said Rules reads as follows:-
"18. Penalty-A candidate who is or has been, declared by the
Commission to be guilty of -
(i) obtaining support for his candidature by any means; or
(ii) impersonation or
(iii) procuring impersonation by any person or
(iv) submitting fabricated documents or documents which have
been tampered with or
(v) making statements which are incorrect or false or
suppressing material information or
(vi) resorting to any other irregular or improper means in
connection with his candidature for the examination, or
(vii) adopting unfair means during the examination; or
(viii) writing obscene language or pornographic matter in the
scripts
(ix) misbehaving with the fellow examiners or the invigilators
in any manner in the examination hall, or
(x) harassing or causing bodily harm to the staff
employed/engaged by the Commission for the conduct of the
examination; or
// 17 //
(xi) violating any of the instructions contained in the
admission certificates
or
(xii) attempting to commit or, as the case may be, abetting the
Commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing
clauses shall be liable-
(a) to be disqualified by the Commission from the examination
for which he/she is a candidate or
(b) to be debarred, either permanently or for a specified
period-
(i) by the Commission, from appearing in any examination or
selection held by them; or
(ii) by the State Government, from entering to any employment
under them; or
(c) if he is already in service under Government, to
disciplinary action under the appropriate rules:
Provided that no penalty under this rule shall be imposed
except after-
(i) giving the candidate an opportunity of making such
representation to the Commission or Government, as the case
may be, in writing as he/she may wish to make in that behalf;
and
(ii) taking into consideration the representation, if any,
submitted by the candidate within the period allowed to
him/her by the Commission of the Government, as the case
may be."
// 18 //
3.12. It is contended that though a batch of writ petitions were filed
challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Commission on
19.02.2025, this Court vide a common order passed on 03.09.2025
disposed of those batch of writ petitions inter alia with the following
observation and direction so contained in Para 6 & 6.1:-
"6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing
the present batch of Writ Petitions directs the Petitioners to file
fresh individual replies to the show cause dtd. 19.02.2025 by
taking all the grounds available to them on or before
17.09.2025. On their filing of the replies to the show causes by
the aforesaid date, the Commission shall take a lawful decision
on the same on or before 10.10.2025. However, in the meantime
the Commission is directed to allow the Petitioners and all those
candidates who have been issued with the show cause to take
further tests as prescribed in the advertisement and allow them
to exercise the option in terms of the notice issued on
20.08.2025. However, publication of the final result in respect of
the present Petitioners and the candidates having been issued
with the show-cause will be subject to final outcome of the
decision to be taken by the Commission with regard to the issue
involved.
6.1. This Court considering the submission of the learned
Advocate General direct that 337 posts proportionately from out
of the total advertised posts shall not be filled up, till a final
decision is taken on the issue involved in the show-cause with
due communication to the Petitioners. Petitioners will be at
liberty to approach this Court afresh if they will be aggrieved by
the decision of the Commission. The Commission however is
// 19 //
permitted to proceed with the selection process and publish the
final merit list in respect of other eligible candidates, who have
come out successful in the recruitment process. The State-
Opposite Party is also permitted to fill-up the balance
advertised posts by keeping 337 posts reserved proportionately
to the total advertised posts."
3.13. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on
03.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 8077 of 2025 & batch, all the Petitioners
filed their respective replies to the show-cause. In the said reply it was
specifically averred that Rule 18 of the 2012 Rules basing on which
the show-cause dtd.19.02.2025 has been issued since is not covering
the alleged illegalities, the show-cause so issued is a nullity in the eye
of law.
3.14. It is also contended that all the Petitioners in their replies also
took a stand that since their academic performance is good and in
absence of any specific finding that they have indulged themselves in
any unfair means in the examination, withholding the result of 337
candidates including that of the Petitioners while publishing the result
of the written examination on 03.09.2024, requires interference of this
Court.
3.15. It is also contended that in terms of order 03.09.2025, all the 337
candidates were allowed by the Commission to take the physical test
// 20 //
and out of those 337 candidates, 314 candidates have qualified the
physical test. It is however contended that without proper appreciation
of the replies filed by the Petitioners to the show-cause dtd.19.02.2025
pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.09.2025, the
Commission vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 directed the
Petitioners to take another test of similar standard and to secure the
minimum qualifying marks meant for each category as per clause No.
10(A)(iii) of the Advertisement No. 762(c) OSSSC dtd.20.10.2023 for
the purpose of retaining the position so published in the provisional
merit list of candidates on 03.09.2024.
3.16. While assailing the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 in each of
the cases, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and other
learned counsels vehemently contended that since after publication of
the written examination result on 03.09.2024, ineligible candidates
and some students made complaints with a prayer to cancel the
recruitment examination and the Committee chaired by the Chief
Secretary on 08.10.2024 came to a definite finding that the
Commission has not received any report from any observer/district
administration regarding dislocation in the conduct of the examination
excepting solitary incident of SSB Edutech, Bhubaneswar on
30.09.2024, on the face of such report of the Committee chaired by
// 21 //
the Chief Secretary, there was no necessity to constitute a Committee
vide notification dtd.25.10.2024 under Annexure-8.
3.17. It is also contended that the Committee so constituted vide
notification dtd.25.10.2024, while submitting the report vide letter
dt.13.02.2025 under Annexure-9, also came to a finding that there is
no large scale irregularity in the conduct of the examination, save and
except the isolated instances of unusually high scores. Basing on such
finding of the Committee, a list of 337 candidates was prepared with
the view that they might have adopted unfair means in the
examination.
3.18. It is vehemently contended that since there is absolutely no proof
that the Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the examination,
basing on mere suspicion, all those 337 candidates which includes the
present Petitioners, could not have been issued with the show-cause
on 19.02.2025 and the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 under
Annexure-17.
3.19. It is contended that since no such material is available either
with the Commission or before the Committee showing that
Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the examination, on mere
suspicion, Petitioners cannot be deprived to get the benefit of
// 22 //
appointment on the face of their qualifying the written examination as
well as the physical test pursuant to order dtd.03.09.2025.
It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the show-cause
dt.19.02.2025 and impugned order dt.10.10.2025, the Commission be
directed to recommend the case of the Petitioners for their
appointment to the posts in question.
3.20. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Public Service
Commission vs. Pankaj Rane & Ors. reported in (2022) 11 SCC 742
and another decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The
Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10.
3.21. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 11 of the Judgment in the case of
Pankaj Rane has held as follows:-
"11. Bearing considerable resemblance as we shall presently
see with the law in the facts is the decision of this Court
starting with P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra), Rule 12 declares
that the Commission is duty bound to forward to the
Government the select list. The select list is to be arranged in
the order of merit of the candidates. The select list is to be sent
arranged in the order of merit which, in turn, is to be
determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained
by each candidate at the competitive written examination and
oral interview. The Rule maker was conscious of the fact that it
// 23 //
has prescribed a separate minimum to be obtained by
candidate in the written examination. It also contemplated the
holding of an interview but as regards the interview a separate
minimum was not stipulated. But at the same time, the law
giver has contemplated that the Commission is to prepare a
select list wherein merit would dictate the order in which the
select list is to be prepared and all that it is to do is to total up
the marks obtained by the candidate in the competitive written
examination and the oral interview. In other words, the merit
list would be dictated by the performance competitive
examination and interview subject only, no doubt, to the
qualification that only those candidates who have obtained 65
marks in the written examination would be qualified. We need
not be detained by the proviso to Rule 12."
3.22. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 8 & 9 of the judgment in
the case of Kuldeep Singh has held as follows:-
"8. The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be
characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not
supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the
evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could
have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This
principle was laid down by this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao, MANU/SC/0222/1963:
(1964)IILLJ150SC, in which the question was whether the High
Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings
recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was
followed In Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jam.
MANU/SC/0416/1968: (1969)IILLJ377SC and Bharat Iron
Works v. Bhagubha Balubhai Patel, MANU/SC/0345/1975:
[1976]2SCR280. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi
Administration through Secretary (Labour),
// 24 //
MANU/SC/0285/1984: (1984)IILLJ517SC It was laid down that
where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence
and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could
come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid
down that where a quasi-judicial Tribunal records findings
based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse
dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers
from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and
stands vitiated.
9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere
with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if
the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a
perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny."
4. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
made his submission basing on the instruction so provided by the
Commission vide letter dtd.15.11.2025. It is contended that out of the
337 candidates who were issued with the show-cause and after going
through the reply submitted by the candidates pursuant to order
dtd.03.09.2025 of this Court, the Commission found that answer
papers of 35 candidates matched with each other and they have
secured high rank on the face of their poor academic records.
Similarly, the Committee found 78 candidates whose answer papers
are matched and having secured high rank with good academic
records. Similarly, the Committee found 5 candidates whose answer
papers though are not matched but they have secured high rank in the
// 25 //
present test with having poor academic records. Similarly, the
Committee found 28 candidates whose answer papers are matched but
have secured high rank with having poor academic records. The
Committee also found 41 candidates whose answer papers though
have matched but they have got good academic records and lastly the
Committee found 5 candidates whose answer papers though have not
matched, but they have secured high rank with having poor academic
records.
4.1. It is further contended that pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 03.09.2025, the Commission allowed 337 candidates to take
the physical test and out of those 337 candidates, 19 candidates could
not qualify the physical test. Not only that in the meantime one
candidate has also died and another 3 candidates could not qualify
having secured the mark below the cut-off mark. It is accordingly
contended that out of 337 candidates who were allowed to take
physical test, 314 candidates have come out successful in the physical
test and accordingly 314 posts have been kept reserved pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in the present batch of writ petitions.
4.2. It is also contended that all these Petitioners since pursuant to
order dtd.03.09.2025 were allowed to file their reply to the show-
cause and after due consideration of such reply, the Committee has
// 26 //
come to a finding that various candidates having poor academic
records have secured high rank in the recruitment test, the Committee
decided not to publish their result while rejecting such claim vide the
impugned order dtd.10.10.2025. Instruction reflected in Para 4 to 11
reads as follows:-
"4. That, the first category of cases involves the candidates whose
answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the
present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. The list
of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given hereunder.
Sl. No. Case Name of the Roll No.
Info Petitioners
WPC of
1 30174 Sidhanta Gouda 1066005563
2 30350 Sasmita Sahu 0466011051
29241
3 30394 Regala Jayaram 1066005507
4 30444 Bhabani Prasad 1966086836
Nayak
5 30425 Dalgovinda Giri 1966043118
6 30343 Prashant Kumar 1166022398
29241 Behera
7 30426 Debashisa Panda 2666005723
8 30440 Deepak Kumar 0766028874
29241 Sahoo
9 30443 Prakash Kumar 1966081145
29241 Sahoo
10 30397 Deepak Kumar 1966067078
29241 Sahoo
11 29908 Bijaya Kumar 1966030809
Pradhan
12 29383 Satya Ranjan 0766027095
Moharana
13 29538 Debadutta 0766028016
Moharana
14 29532 Laxmikanta Kumar 1966080313
15 29433 Benudhar Behera 0766027141
16 29537 Chandan Dalai 0766028800
17 29694 KeeluGaneswara 1066005901
Rao
18 29708 Sandhyarani 0766040781
Mohanty
19 29771 Dhiren Jena 0466011334
// 27 //
20 29893 Biswa Ranjan Naik 0766027389
21 30107 Srikant Sarango 1066003982
22 30022 Kumari Arati 1966088157
Pradhan
23 30016 Kalandi Khatua 0766028021
24 29904 Gujju Tarakeswara 1066004530
Rao
25 30015 Santosh Kumar 1966067335
Raut
26 30656 Ardhendhu Sekhar 0466014966
Sahu
27 30718 Chandan Pradhan 0466011617
28 31578 Kalpataru Jena 0766040956
29 31604 Sreeya Swain 1066005827
30 31620 Prabodh Kumar 0766026655
Sahoo
31 31699 Kalandi Parida 0766041912
32 30771 Madan Mohan 0766028129
Pradhan
33 30918 Ranjan Kumar 0766028864
Swain
34 31336 Manoj Kumar Das 1966063699
35 31775 Sarbeswar Majhi
5. That, the second category of cases involves the candidates
whose answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank
in the present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records.
The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given
hereunder.
// 28 //
// 29 //
// 30 //
6. That, the third category of cases involves the candidates whose
answer papers are not matched, they have secured high rank in the
present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They
have not appeared the recruitment test for the post of Junior
Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under Combined
Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this Commission. The
list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given hereunder.
// 31 //
7. That, the fourth category of cases involves the candidates whose
answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the present
Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They have not
secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment test
for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under
Combined Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this
Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given
hereunder.
// 32 //
8. That, the fifth category of cases involves the candidates whose
answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the present
Recruitment Test and have good academic records. They have not
secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment test
for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under
Combined Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this
Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given
hereunder.
// 33 //
9. That, the sixth category of cases involves the candidates whose
answer papers are not matched, they have secured high rank in the
present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They have
// 34 //
not secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment
test for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer
under Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 conducted by this
Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given
hereunder.
10. Thus, there are 06 category of Writ Petitions involving 233 Writ
Petitions covering 192 number of petitioners posted for hearing on
17.11.2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
11. That, the Commission have now allowed the 337 number of
candidates (who were previously debarred from taking the physical
test) to appear in the Physical Test required for the post of Livestock
Inspector, Forester & Forest Guard under Combined Recruitment
Examination-2023. During the Physical Test, 19 number of
candidates could not be qualified in the test, one died. Also, 03 other
candidates were below the cut-off mark, So, 337-23-314 number of
posts have been kept reserved for the petitioners pursuant to the
orders of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in different Writ Petitions."
4.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 and Petitioners are not
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment even though all
of them have qualified the written test as well as the physical test in
the meantime. It is further contended that all the 314 candidates
including that of the Petitioners be directed to take the test, in terms of
// 35 //
order dt.10.10.2025 and subject to their qualifying the test, they will
be provided with appointment.
5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate,
learned Sr. Counsels appearing for the Petitioners made further
submission contending inter alia that a candidate having poor
academic record, if any, cannot be taken for granted that he cannot
secure good mark in the recruitment test. Hence poor academic record
is not a ground to disqualify any candidate, on the mere assumption
that because of such poor academic record, the candidate cannot
perform well in any recruitment examination.
5.1. It is also contended that since out of the 314 candidates, 35
candidates are having poor academic records and answer papers being
matched and 28 candidates with similar record, having found
ineligible to get the benefit on the ground that they have not secured
the minimum qualifying mark in the recruitment for the post of Junior
Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer Combined Recruitment
Examination-2023 conducted by the Commission, on the basis of such
mere finding, result of all 314 candidates cannot be withheld.
5.2. It is also contended that similarly situated candidates having poor
academic record and having secured good percentile of mark and
// 36 //
placed in the merit list have got the benefit of appointment by the
Commission. To be specific, it is contended that candidates bearing
Roll Nos.1066004241, 0466006318, 1966085558, 1966080780,
1966086920, 1066005179, 0466004718, 1966041714, 2566004064,
0466013552, 0466013098 & 1966005793, though do not have good
academic record, but they have secured 100 percentile marks and have
got the benefit of appointment. Not only that candidates with poor
academic record have also got the benefit of appointment bearing
various Roll Numbers.
5.3. It is contended that since similarly situated candidates having
poor academic record and with 100 percentile marks have got the
benefit of appointment, rejection of the Petitioner's claim to get the
benefit of appointment subject to their qualifying the tests to be
conducted vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 is not sustainable
in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that all these
Petitioners took the Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 so
issued by the Commission vide Advertisement No. II-
47/2023/762/OSSSC dt.20.10.2023. In the said advertisement, the
Commission advertised to fill up 719 posts for Livestock Inspector,
// 37 //
316 posts for Forester and 1677 posts for Forest Guard, in total 2712
posts. In the written examination, result of which was published by the
Commission on 03.09.2024, 8496 candidates qualified the written
examination, which includes the present Petitioners.
6.1. However, basing on the complaints made by some unsuccessful
candidates and the general public and pursuant to the decision taken
by the Commission in its proceeding dtd.08.10.2024 under Annexure-
7 and finding of the Committee in its report dtd.08.02.2025 under
Annexure-9, 337 candidates, which includes the Petitioners, were not
allowed to take physical test in terms of the advertisement. After
debarring all those 337 candidates to take the physical test, they were
issued with a common show-cause by the Commission on 19.02.2025
in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 18 of the 2012 Rules.
Such a show-cause was issued by the Commission on the ground that
the Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the written examination.
6.2. Challenging such common show-cause issued by the Commission
on 19.02.2025, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 8077 of 2025 & batch. This Court vide order
dtd.03.09.2025, while disposing those batch of writ petitions,
permitted the Petitioners therein to file their reply to the show-cause
and for its consideration by the Commission. Vide the said order this
// 38 //
Court also directed the Commission to allow all such 337 candidates
to participate in the physical test.
6.3. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court though all those 337
candidates were allowed to take the physical test, but as found from
the instruction provided by the Commission, 314 candidates have
qualified the physical test. But vide the impugned order
dtd.10.10.2025, the Commission has decided not to publish the result
of all those 314 candidates, which includes the present Petitioners and
instead has directed them to take another test of similar standard and
to secure the minimum qualifying mark for the purpose of retaining
their position in the provisional merit list.
6.4. This Court taking into account the report of the Committee
chaired by the Chief Secretary in its minutes of the meeting
dtd.08.10.2024 under Annexure-7, found that after publication of the
written examination result on 03.09.2024, complaints were received
by the Commission from different quarters, which includes the
disqualified candidates that there are large scale irregularities in the
conduct of the examination by the Commission.
6.5. However, the said Committee in its proceeding dtd.08.10.2024
found that with regard to the alleged irregularities in the conduct of
// 39 //
the examination, no report has been received by the Commission from
any observer/district administration, save and except a solitary
incident, where the examination was only conducted by one hour late
on 30.09.2024.
6.6. It is also found that pursuant to the notification issued by the G.A.
& P.G. Department on 25.10.2024 under Annexure-8, the Committee
after going through the materials placed before it by the Commission
and the complaints made by the Complainants, came to a finding that
there are no large-scale irregularities in conducting the examination
vide its report dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9. However, basing on
the finding of the Committee, result of 337 candidates was not
published and instead they were issued with the show-cause on
19.02.2025.
6.7. When various writ petitions were filed challenging the said show-
cause, this Court while disposing all those writ petitions vide a
common order passed on 03.09.2025, allowed the Petitioners therein
to file their respective replies and this Court further directed to the
Commission to take a decision on the issue involved in the show-
cause. This Court also directed the Commission to allow all those
Petitioners to take the physical test.
// 40 //
6.8. As found from the record, after allowing all those 337 candidates
to take the physical test, 314 candidates have qualified in the physical
test. But their claim to get the benefit of appointment was rejected
vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025, but with a rider that, they
should take another test of similar nature to justify their eligibility and
to retain their position in the provisional merit list.
6.9. It is also found from the record that out of those 314 candidates,
who have been asked to take a fresh test, there are 35 candidates, who
have secured high rank in the recruitment, even though they have poor
academic records and whose answer sheets are matched. There are 78
candidates whose answer sheets though have matched, but they are
having good academic record and have secured high rank in the
recruitment test. Similarly, there are 5 candidates, whose answer
sheets though do not match, but they have secured high rank on the
face of poor academic record. There are 28 candidates who have
secured high rank in the recruitment test with having poor academic
record and answer sheets being matched and they have also not
secured the minimum qualifying mark in the earlier recruitment held
by the self-same Commission. There are 41 candidates who have also
secured high rank, but with good academic record and answer sheets
being matched, but have not qualified in the earlier recruitment test.
// 41 //
There are 5 candidates who have secured high rank with having poor
academic record, but with answer sheets being not matched.
6.10. This Court after going through the records, found that after
publication of the result of the written examination on 03.09.2024,
337 candidates with high percentile mark in the written examination,
which include the Petitioners were not allowed to take the physical
test, basing on the finding of the proceeding dt.08.10.2024 and
subsequently were issued with the show-cause on 19.02.2025, basing
on the report of the Committee dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9.
It is also the view of this Court that show-cause dt.19.02.2025, so
issued in terms of the provision contained under Rule 18 of the 2012
Rules is not legal and justified as none of the stipulation contained
under Rule 18(1) to 18(xii) of the Rules is attracted.
6.11. This Court from the report dt.08.10.2024 under Annexure-7 and
report dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9, finds that none of the
Committees have found any serious illegality or irregularity with
regard to conduct of the written examination, so conducted by the
Commission for the period from 24.04.2024 to 07.05.2024. But on
mere assumption that 337 candidates having poor academic record,
have secured good mark in the written examination, suggested for
// 42 //
holding of a further qualifying test for those 337 candidates. But as
found, out of those 337 candidates, 314 candidates have qualified the
physical test.
6.12. It is also found that similarly situated candidates having poor
academic record with high percentile mark in the written examination,
have got the benefit of selection as well as appointment. This Court
accordingly is of the view that, in the case of the Petitioners, the
Commission cannot take a different stand even though in some of the
cases, answer sheets of those candidates matched with each other.
6.13. It is also the view of this Court that poor academic record cannot
be taken as a ground for not securing good mark in a recruitment test.
Since the Commission has not received any adverse report from any
of the 94 centres, regarding any illegality or irregularity with regard to
the conduct of the written examination, on mere assumption that
Petitioners having poor academic record, since have secured high rank
in the recruitment test, cannot be taken as a ground to make them
ineligible and to direct them to appear a further test in order to make
them eligible to keep their position in the select list, in view of the
decision in the case of Manohar Lal and Raja Ram as cited (supra).
// 43 //
6.14. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the undisputed fact that
nothing adverse has been found against any of the Petitioners while
taking the written test, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned
show-cause dt.19.02.2025 and so also order dtd.10.10.2025, so passed
in all these cases and while quashing the show-cause dt.19.02.2025
and order dt.10.10.2025 in each of the writ petition, this Court directs
the Commission to recommend the Petitioners against the post in
question, taking into account the choice given by them within a period
of 3 (three) weeks hence. On such recommendation of the Petitioners,
respective Departments of the Govt. shall take effective steps, to
provide appointment to the Petitioners without any further delay.
6.15. However, it is observed that Petitioners will not claim any
seniority over the appointees already issued with the orders of
appointment and have joined in the posts in various Departments of
the Government. Such appointments be treated as prospective in
nature and the same be reflected in the order of appointment.
Petitioners be permitted to join pursuant to such order of appointment
by furnishing an undertaking to the effect that they will not claim any
seniority or any claim of any nature vis-à-vis the candidates who have
already joined in their posts.
// 44 //
7. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 16th April, 2026/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
