Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 479 (ORI)

Nidarsini Rath v. State of Odisha

2014-08-08

AMITAVA ROY, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2014
Judgment AMITAVA ROY, C.J. The writ petitioner, a contender for the post of Civil Judge in the Orissa Judicial Service seeks judicial intervention for a direction to permit her to appear in the interview of the OJS Examination, 2009 and be declared successful for eventual appointment. 2. Briefly stated, her pleaded case is that she is a practicing advocate in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in the district of Nabarangpur. She offered her candidature in response to the Advertisement No.10 of 2008-09 issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) for recruitment to 77 posts of Civil Judge in the Judicial Service. On being successful in the preliminary written examination, she appeared in the main examination, but in the results thereof published on 25th August, 2009, her name did not find place in the list of successful candidates. According to her, after receipt of mark sheet from the Commission, she came to know that she did not qualify in the main examination to be called for the interview. From the mark sheet, she came to learn that she had secured 47.73 % i.e. 358 marks out of 750 in the aggregate, but had been granted 47 marks i.e. 31.33% marks out of 150, in English paper i.e. 31.33%, whereas as per the Rule, she has to secure 33% of marks in each subject. She has contended that she having secured above 45% of marks in the aggregate, she could not have been disqualified for the interview. She sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for securing the aforementioned reliefs. 3. The Commission in its reply referred to the Rules of Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short referred to as ‘Rules’) and pleaded that in terms thereof, it can call only those candidates who had secured not less then forty five percent marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty three percent marks in each paper in the main written examination. It thus clarified that though the petitioner had secured more than 45% of marks in aggregate, she not having been awarded 33% in each of the papers of the main examination, she was in terms of the above Rules not qualified to be called for the interview. It thus clarified that though the petitioner had secured more than 45% of marks in aggregate, she not having been awarded 33% in each of the papers of the main examination, she was in terms of the above Rules not qualified to be called for the interview. In categorical terms, the Commission asserted that the writ petitioner had failed to secure 33% in general English and thus being ineligible she was not called to appear in the interview of the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009. 4. Mr. Panda has insisted that the writ petitioner having secured above 45% of marks in aggregate, the Commission could not have adjudged the petitioner to be ineligible for not securing 33% of marks in English paper only. 5. We have examined the facts, documents on records and also referred the Rules more particularly Rule-24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule-24 of the Rules which occupies the centre stage of debate is extracted hereunder. “Rule-24. Determination of number of candidates for interview -The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty five percent of marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty three percent of marks in each paper in the written examination.” 6. A plain reading of the text of the Rule-24 makes it clear that a candidate to be qualified to be called for the interview in a process as involved has not only to secure minimum 45% of marks in the aggregate, but also minimum 33% marks in each paper. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner had failed to secure 33% marks in English paper in the main written examination, 2009. Thus, in terms of Rule-24, she was ineligible to be called for the interview. Undisputedly, Rule-24 of the Rules prescribes a dual requirement i.e. minimum 45% marks in aggregate and minimum 33% marks in each paper in the main written examination. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s plea that she having secured more than 45% marks in aggregate, she was qualified to be called for the interview is untenable. . Her failure to secure 33% marks in each paper in the main written examination makes her ineligible to be called for the interview. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s plea that she having secured more than 45% marks in aggregate, she was qualified to be called for the interview is untenable. . Her failure to secure 33% marks in each paper in the main written examination makes her ineligible to be called for the interview. Materials on record are inadequate as well to conclude that her performance in English paper has been wrongly evaluated resulting in awarding of 31.33% marks. 9. On a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the mandate Rule-24 of the Rules, we are of the opinion that the present challenge lacks merit. 10. The writ petition thus stands rejected. No cost.