Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 84 (ORI)

ANANTA CHARAN SETHI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-01-30

I.M.QUDDUSI, SANJU PANDA

body2009
JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - By means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction for modification of the orders under Annexures18 and 20 to the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to consider his case in the D.P.C. which is going to be held in near future for promotion to the rank of Fire Officer and for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 3 to reevaluate the answer sheet of the Petitioner by treating his answers in the same manner as done in respect of others and communicate the result thereof declaring him to have passed in the said Departmental (Accounts) Examination, 2007. 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as Station Officer at Baliguda Fire Station on 7.3.1984. Accordingly he joined in his post. While he was continuing as such, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Fire Officer in the month of February, 1997 and posted at Bhadrak Fire Station. Subsequently the Petitioner was also promoted to the rank of Deputy Fire Officer on ad-hoc basis vide Home Department Notification No. 969 dated 24.5.2004 and posted to Northern Range, Sambalpur. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, he was allowed to continue on regular basis in the rank of Deputy Fire Officer on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Home Department Notification No. 484 dated 9.3.2005. Accordingly, he is continuing as Deputy, Fire Officer at Northern Range, Sambalpur till date and during his service periods, the Petitioner has been performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authorities and having good service records. 3. It is further submitted that, while the Petitioner was continuing as Deputy Fire Officer, Northern Range, Sambalpur, Departmental Accounts Examination was scheduled to be conducted by the Board of Revenue in the month of June, 2007. The Petitioner applied to appear at the said 1st Half yearly Departmental Examination of Officers, 2007, belonging to Orissa Administrative Service, Orissa Settlement and Consolidation Service, Finance Service, Orissa Civil. Supply service, Orissa Forest Service, Orissa Police Service, Orissa Employment Service, Mining and Geology Service, Textile and sericulture Service, Industry Service, Electrical & Mechanical Service and Excise Service. The Petitioner applied to appear at the said 1st Half yearly Departmental Examination of Officers, 2007, belonging to Orissa Administrative Service, Orissa Settlement and Consolidation Service, Finance Service, Orissa Civil. Supply service, Orissa Forest Service, Orissa Police Service, Orissa Employment Service, Mining and Geology Service, Textile and sericulture Service, Industry Service, Electrical & Mechanical Service and Excise Service. Accordingly the Admit Card was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No. 3 and the Roll Nuiriber was allotted to the Petitioner as P.S.02. The Petitioner appeared at the said Departmental (Accounts) Examination, 2007 by giving satisfactory/right answers of all the questions and the result of the said 1st Half yearly Departmental Examination of Officers, 2007 was published on 18th July, 2007 in a Gazette Notification by the Opposite Party No. 3 wherein the name of the Petitioner did not find place as he was declared to have failed. 4. It is further averred in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner was surprised to know that he has secured only 94 marks which is less than pass mark i.e. 100 out of 160 marks. The marks secured by Petitioner are not at all trustworthy, since it contains very low marks in comparison to the marks expected by him. It proves that the Petitioner's answer paper has not been properly examined and there was careless and whimsical valuation by the in experienced examiner which clearly shows non-application of mind by the examiner. 5. The Petitioner obtained the Xerox copies of his answer sheets as well as that of Roll No. PS 31 and the question papers and annexed the same with the Writ Petition. On 17.12.2007 this Court had noticed on pointing out by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the answer given by the Petitioner at page 43 of the paper book of the Writ Petition i.e. Answer to question No. 3 is similar to the answer given by other person contained at page-62 of the paper book. While the said person was awarded 22 marks the Petitioner has been awarded only 15 marks. Therefore, this Court-passed orders directing the Opposite Parties to take note of this fact and submit the explanation on the next date. While the said person was awarded 22 marks the Petitioner has been awarded only 15 marks. Therefore, this Court-passed orders directing the Opposite Parties to take note of this fact and submit the explanation on the next date. On 6.2.2008 this Court observed that although answer of the Petitioner to question No. 1-E contained at page 37 of the paper book was similar to answer to question No. 1-E of other candidate contained at page 52 of the paper book, the Petitioner was awarded only two marks whereas the other candidate got six marks though the full mark was five. Therefore, this Court desired to know the view of the Learned Member, Board of Revenue as to whether any injustice has been done to the Petitioner and likewise to other persons or not. The Learned Member, Board of Revenue has submitted his confidential report and made his own assessment according which the Petitioner was entitled to get 76 marks whereas the other person namely Prasanna Kumar Parhi should have got 95 marks and both were not qualifying. However Sri Parhi has already been notified as having passed the examination. But after seeing that comparison, this Court is of the opinion that no parity is liable to be given to the Petitioner with Mr. Parhi. It is also noticed that though Mr. Parhi, according to the Learned Member, Board of Revenue could not achieve 100 marks, but he is not a party in the Writ Petition and also there is no prayer for quashing of his selection. Therefore, this Court declines to pass any order in respect of a person who is not a party. 6. We are concerned here with the Petitioner's case. He has got 91.5 marks whereas the minimum pass mark is 100. Therefore, he did not qualify. If the opinion of the Learned Member, Board of Revenue with regard to fresh assessment of marks is to be accepted, in that case the Petitioner would only get 76 marks which will be less than the marks awarded to him earlier and therefore in no case he could be declared as qualified. No fruitful purpose would be served if the opinion of the Learned Member, Board of Revenue is taken into consideration in respect of the other person Shri Parhi. No fruitful purpose would be served if the opinion of the Learned Member, Board of Revenue is taken into consideration in respect of the other person Shri Parhi. In the case of Shri Parhi opinion of the Learned Member, Board of Revenue is that he would get 93 marks whereas the Petitioner would get only 76 marks. However, since we have already said that Shri Parhi is not a party in this case, we cannot take up his case at this stage and we cannot give parity in view of the less mark obtained by the Petitioner in comparison to Shri Parhi. 7. In our opinion, there is no merit in this Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. Sanju Panda, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed