Mreenmayee Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 24 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    W.P.(C) No. 10240 of 2025


Mreenmayee Nayak                    .....                Petitioner
                                                    Mr. C. Bidyabhushan, Adv.
                                -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.             .....               Opposite Parties
                                                Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
                                                Mr. S. Swain, Adv.
                                                (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2)
                                                Mr. P. Behera, Adv.
                                                (for O.P. No.3)
                                                Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv.
                                                (for Intervener)


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

20.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court be kept in record.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia following prayer.

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause and in case they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue appropriate writ, direction, or order directing the Opp. Parties:

(a) To include the name of the petitioner in the Final Merit List by taking into account the grounds mentioned above;

(b) To re-publish the Final Merit list issued by OP-2 by including the name of the present petitioner at appropriate position;

(c) To provide the petitioner with appointment order for the post of Junior MVI;

(d) And pass any other/further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity and in favour of the petitioner.

And for the said act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

5. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission vide Advertisement dated 08.12.2023 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made her application and participated in the selection process in terms of the admission letter issued under Annexure-3. Petitioner subsequently also appeared in the main examination and after qualifying the main examination, vide Annexure-7 admission letter, she was asked to appear on 30.08.2024 for verification of certificates. But in the notification issued under Annexure-8, her name was neither included nor recommendation for her appointment as against the post of Junior MVI in the establishment of Transport Commissioner -cum- Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack.

5.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner on being so excluded from being recommended for her appointment as against

the post of Junior MVI vide notification dated 08.04.2025 under Annexure-8, made an application before the Secretary of the Commission on 09.04.2025 under Annexure-9, but Petitioner was never provided with the OMR answer sheet/ mark secured by the candidates for the post of Junior MVI. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

5.2. It is further contended that as per her own calculation, Petitioner was expecting to secure 89.5 marks and since the last candidate selected under UR (W) category has got the benefit of selection with the cut off mark at 63, non-inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the notification dated 08.04.2025 under Annexure-8 requires interference of this Court.

5.3. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 15.04.2025, passed an interim order to keep one post of Junior MVI in the SEBC category vacant till the next date, if the same has not been filled up in the meantime.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that even though Petitioner was short-listed for certificate verification in the order of merit having secured 91.5 marks, but during the verification of certificate so held on 30.08.2024 it was found that Petitioner had submitted the certificate of diploma in Automobile Engineering and Driving License to drive a two-wheeler without gear, even though as per the requirement, such driving licence should have been a driving licence authorized to drive motor cycle.

6.1. It is further contended that Petitioner was not having the driving licence with her as on the last date of submission of the application i.e.25.01.2024 and the driving licence so obtained by her on 27.08.2024, since was not in terms of the provisions contained under Clause 3 (b) of the Advertisement, Petitioner's application was rejected and her name was not included in the notification dated 08.04.2025 under annexure-8. Clause 2 (b) provides as follows:-

"The candidate must have a driving licence authorizing him/her to drive motor cycle and transport vehicle."

6.2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the provisions contained under Para 2(b) of the Advertisement, Petitioner does not possess a valid driving licence authorizing her to drive transport vehicle as well as to drive motor cycle and admittedly Petitioner produced a driving licence permitting her to drive a two wheeler without gear, she was found ineligible to get the benefit of selection and recommendation. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Commission in not recommending her name, while recommending the names of the selected candidates vide notification dated 08.04.2025 under Annexure-8.

7. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener- Petitioner on the other hand contended that even though vide notification dated 08.04.2025, the Commission recommended the names of 48 candidates for their appointment to the post of Junior MVI, but vide order dated 02.06.2025, Opp. Party No.3 has appointed 40 candidates.

7.1. It is also contended that because of the interim order passed, the Intervener-Petitioner though has been found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as a SEBC category candidate, but she has not yet been provided with the order of appointment.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 08.12.2023 under Annexure-1, Petitioner participated in the selection process for Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination for Group-B and Group-C posts/services under different Departments/HODs of the Govt. of Odisha.

8.1. It is not disputed that Petitioner qualified in the preliminary examination as well as the main examination and after such passing of the preliminary and main examination, Petitioner vide Annexure-7 letter, was directed to appear on 30.08.2024 for verification of her certificates in support of her qualification prescribed under Para-3(b) of the Advertisement.

8.2. As provided under Para 3(b) and in respect of the post of Junior MVI, a candidate in addition to his/ her having the Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, has to possess the driving licence authorizing him/her to drive motor cycle and transport vehicle. The fact which is not disputed, Petitioner as on the date of making application, was not having the required driving license with her.

8.3. However on the date of verification of certificates, Petitioner though produced a driving license issued on 27.08.2024, but the said driving license is not in terms of the stipulation contained under Para 3(b) of the Advertisement. Petitioner only produced the driving license wherein she has been authorized to drive a two- wheeler without gear.

8.4. Since in terms of the provisions contained under Para 3(b) of the Advertisement, Petitioner failed to produce a driving license authorizing her to drive motor cycle and transport vehicle, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Commission in not recommending her name while recommending the names of the selected candidates vide Notification dated 08.04.2025 under Annexure-8.

8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction for inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the notification issued on 08.04.2025 under Annexure-8 and accordingly is not inclined to entertain the Writ petition with the prayer as made in the Writ Petition.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and stands dismissed. Interim order passed on 15.04.2025 stands vacated.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA