Madhusmita Mishra vs Chairman on 13 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 WP(C) No. 36682 of 2023
Madhusmita Mishra            .....       Petitioner
                                                         Mr. R.K. Bisoi, Advocate
                                       -versus-
Chairman, Odisha Staff                    .....                Opposite Parties
Selection Commission, BBSR                                 Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Advocate
& Anr.                                                        Opp. Party No. 2)


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

13.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. R.K. Bisoi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:_

"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the record and after hearing both the parties, pass the following reliefs:

(i) To set aside and quash the rejection order of Opp. Party as at Annexure-8 dated 18.04.2022.

(ii) To direct the Opp. Parties to appoint the petitioner in vacant post under reserved for PWD unreserved category or any other unreserved category post of Asst. Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2016 Advertisement.

(iii) And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

4. It is contended that even though Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 17.08.2016, participated in the selection process as having belong to PWD UR (Women), but when she was not selected, she made a representation for consideration of her claim before Opp. Party No. 3. This Court vide order dtd.28.12.2021 when directed for consideration of the claim of the Petitioner, it was rejected vide the impugned report dtd.18.04.2022 under Annexure-8.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the category to which Petitioner belongs, since no candidate from that category has been recommended by the Commission, and Petitioner accordingly was deprived to get the benefit, the impugned order rejecting her claim is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 contended that even though Petitioner participated as a PWD UR (Women) category candidates, and 1% of the post is reserved for Category I, II, III & IV, but taking into account the mark secured by the Petitioner in comparison to the cut- off mark fixed for such PWD category candidates, Petitioner was not found eligible and entitled to get the benefit of recommendation and consequential appointment.

5.1. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to the stand taken in Para 9 as well as Para 10 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-

"That in reply to the averment made in para-7 to 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per terms and conditions of advertisement, 30 (thirty) PwD candidates (three times the number of vacancy) were shortlisted for certificate verification. Out of above, 10 (ten) PwD candidates were to be selected but nine PwD candidates were selected in the select list vide Notification No.4305/OSSC dt.14.12.2020 and one post of PwD under UR category was kept vacant for Amita Maharana who secured 156 marks i.e. more than last selection mark of PwD category i.e. 155 mark as her PwD certificate seems to have been tampered. The PwD certificate of Amita Maharana was referred to SSEPD Department for verification of genuineness of her disability. Director, SSEPD had submitted their report vide Letter No.9601/SSEPD dt.13.12.2021 that Ms. Maharana was given two chances on 23.09.2021 & 09.12.2021 to appear before the Appellate Medical Board at MKCGMCH, Berhampur for verification of genuineness disability but she did not appear the board. Hence, her candidature was cancelled. After receipt of report of SSEPD Department, the validity period (one year from the date of publication of select list) of the select list is expired. Henceforth, the Commission could not select/ sponsor another PwD candidate in place of Amita Maharana.

Detail marks secured by nine selected PwD candidates are as follows.

The Petitioner has secured 129 marks. 10 eligible PwD candidates who appeared the viva test were above the petitioner in the merit list. The details are as follows.

From the above table it is observed that if one PwD candidate would have been selected, Miss Arati Samal just below the selected PwD candidates would have been selected. As 10 more candidates were available above the petitioner, it was not possible to select the petitioner ignoring the merit of the above

ten candidates. As such, the contention of the petitioner that her name appears in the select list reflecting her position at Serial No.11 is not correct rather a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Furthermore the petitioner has relied upon the report of the Commissioner in SCPD case which has been dismissed by the Commissioner after giving a chance of hearing both parties with a speaking order.

10. That in reply to the averment made in para-12 to 13 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per terms of advertisement total mark in viva test was 30. As per performance in viva voce board, marks awarded by the expert members. Performance in educational career had no role to play in viva voce marking. There was no qualifying mark in viva voce. Although it is a fact that the candidates selected have secured less mark than the petitioner in the viva voce test but the allegation of the petitioner is completely baseless and unreasonable. The petitioner has knowingly or unknowingly treated the list of 11 persons as stated above to be merit list and select list. As alleged by the petitioner if she would have been awarded full marks i.e. 30 marks in viva voce, she would have secured 129+18=147 marks (after adjustment of 12 marks already added in total mark towards the viva voce test) still, she would be below Miss Arati Samal in merit. Hence, her selection for the post is not possible in any way."

5.2. It is contended that since in respect of PWD category candidates, on the face of the cut-off mark fixed at 155, Petitioner has only secured 129 marks and in the category to which Petitioner belong, there are 10 candidates above her, Petitioner cannot get the benefit of selection and the same has been rightly rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 17.08.2016, Petitioner made her candidature as a PWD UR (Women) candidate. But when Petitioner was not selected, she made a representation before Opp. Party No. 1 claiming the benefit of appointment. When the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 38321 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.22.12.2021 under Annexure-7 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner's claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.18.04.2022 under Annexure-8 of Opp. Party No. 3.

6.1. This Court taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 and the fact that on the face of the cut-off mark fixed at 155 for such PWD category candidates, Petitioner has only secured 129 marks and there are 10 candidates, who have secured more mark than the Petitioner and have not been recommended, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dt.18.04.2022 under Annexure-8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss the writ petition.

7. the writ petition stands dismissed.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack