JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of Procurement Inspector advertised by the Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has filed this application seeking for following reliefs: “….. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other suitable writ Quashing Annexure-7 to the extent of erroneous calculation of the weightage of marks given for +2 examination And quashing the select lists under Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the extent they contain heterogeneous methods of conversion of CGPA marks to percentage in respect of the B.Tech candidates and to the extent such select lists include the candidates not passing 10+2 Examination. And commanding the opposite parties particularly to opposite party no.1 to re-cast such select list by adopting of homogenous principle for such conversion in respect of such B.Tech candidates following the mode of conversion of the grade points to percentage as prescribed by the AICTE, and excluding the candidates who have not passed 10+2 Examination. And the opposite party be further directed to absorb the meritorious SC Candidates from the re-cast select list against general vacancies and to prepare the select list of remaining SC candidates as per their quota in consonance with the ORV Act and to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of Procurement Inspector in order of merit allowing due seniority to him”. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner being Gokha by caste belongs to Scheduled Caste and after passing +2 Science in 1st division, he prosecuted B. Tech course in Bio-medical Engineering under BPUT and passed B.Tech in 2009-10 with CGPA 7.22. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd for recruitment to the post of Procurement Inspectors in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/--Rs-34,800/- (PB-2), the petitioner submitted on-line application for the same. Out of total posts of 341, 78 were reserved for S.T. and 53 for Scheduled Castes. The qualification prescribed for the post was Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline or equivalent examination from recognized university with at least 50% marks in aggregate and one must have working knowledge in computer. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the same, but he having not been selected challenging the illegality and irregularity in the process of selection he has filed this application. 3. Mr. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the same, but he having not been selected challenging the illegality and irregularity in the process of selection he has filed this application. 3. Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that as per Clause-7 of the advertisement the selection of applicants was to be made on the basis of the marks secured by them in the Secondary (Matriculation), Higher Secondary (10+2) and Graduate examinations conducted by a recognized Board/Council or University, as the case may be. Due to illegality and irregularity committed by the opposite parties in the process of selection for recruitment to the post of Procurement Inspectors, the petitioner has been deprived of getting appointment. He further urged that in the select list of Scheduled Caste category which contains 36 names in the order of weightage of marks obtained in Secondary, Higher Secondary and Graduation, the last candidate is shown to have total weightage of 71.91%. Subsequently the second merit list and the waiting list were also published by the opposite arties in the website. Since the name of the petitioner did not find place therein he downloaded his result sheet and found that there is error in calculating his marks in Secondary Examination (10th class). Though he secured 369 marks out of 500 i.e. 73.80% correct weightage of 14.76% has been given to him. In calculating the weightage for Higher Secondary Examination there is error to the extent that the petitioner has secured 574 out of 1100(with extra optional) and 528 out of 900(without extra optional). Although the opposite parties have taken into account the marks secured as 528 (without extra optional), the total marks with extra optional i.e. 1100 has been taken into account for calculating the percentage instead of taking total marks without extra optional i.e. 900. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to weightage of 11.73 %, but he has been awarded with weightage of 9.60 against +2 examination. Similarly, while calculating his weightage against Graduation, i.e. B.Tech, the conversion of CGPA has not been done correctly. So far as other candidates are concerned the same has been done correctly. Therefore, the selection to the post of Procurement Inspectors having not been done in conformity with the provisions of law, the petitioner seeks for interference of this Court with the same. 4. Per contra Mr. So far as other candidates are concerned the same has been done correctly. Therefore, the selection to the post of Procurement Inspectors having not been done in conformity with the provisions of law, the petitioner seeks for interference of this Court with the same. 4. Per contra Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. though raised non-joinder of proper parties, his specific contention was that the selection has been done in conformity with the advertisement and no such illegality or irregularity has been done in the process of selection. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same. Even if any allegation made to the effect that there is error in calculating +2 marks subsequently, the same has been rectified before publication of the result. The error of calculation so far as +2 marks is concerned it has been reconsidered taking into account the mark i.e. 528 secured by the petitioner without extra optional out of 900. Accordingly, the percentage of marks has been determined and the CGPA marks awarded in the graduation so far as the petitioner is concerned, no illegality and irregularity has been made and it has been done in conformity with the instruction issued by the BPUT vide Annexure-D/1. 5. Considering the contentions raised by the parties and after going through the records, the following issues arise for consideration: (i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable due to non-joinder of proper parties ? (ii) Whether any illegality or irregularity has been committed in the matter of selection to the post of Procurement Inspectors pursuant to advertisement issued by the Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. by awarding different marks in CGPA at graduation level ? 6. (ii) Whether any illegality or irregularity has been committed in the matter of selection to the post of Procurement Inspectors pursuant to advertisement issued by the Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. by awarding different marks in CGPA at graduation level ? 6. Issue no.1-Maintainability of the writ petition: The petitioner has filed this application to quash Annexure-7 to the extent of erroneous calculation of weightage of marks given in +2 examination, to quash the select list under Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the extent that they contain heterogeneous methods of conversion of CGPA marks to percentage in respect of B.Tech candidates and to the extent such select lists include the candidates not passing 10+2 Examination and further seeks for a direction to re-cast such select list by adopting homogenous principle for such conversion in respect of B.Tech candidates following the mode of conversion of the grade points to percentage as prescribed by the AICTE by excluding the candidates who have not passed 10+2 Examination. Admittedly, the petitioner as a candidate applied for the post of Procurement Inspector on 16.07.2011 belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Since the petitioner challenges the selection to the said post and seeks for quashing the select list in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the extent they contain heterogeneous methods of conversion of CGPA marks to percentage in respect of B.Tch candidates, he has not impleaded such selected candidates as parties to the writ petition. By virtue of selection made pursuant to Annexures-4, 5 and 6 more particularly Annexure-4 so far as Scheduled Caste candidates are concerned to which the petitioner belongs, appointments have already been made consequently such selected candidates have acquired right to the post. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such selection procedure, he could have impleaded such selected candidates as parties to the proceeding itself. Here such select candidates have already joined in service, the select list cannot be quashed by this Court due to non-joinder of proper parties. Accordingly, the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of proper parties and therefore, the same is not maintainable. 7. Issue No.II On perusal of Annexure-7, it appears that the petitioner’s mark in +2 has not been properly determined to the extent that though he secured 528 marks without extra optional, percentage has even determined taking the total marks as 1100 which is inclusive of extra optional marks. 7. Issue No.II On perusal of Annexure-7, it appears that the petitioner’s mark in +2 has not been properly determined to the extent that though he secured 528 marks without extra optional, percentage has even determined taking the total marks as 1100 which is inclusive of extra optional marks. Therefore, if the marks secured has been taken as 528 without extra optional, then percentage should have been determined taking into account the total mark without extra optional, i.e. 900 marks, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 stated that error has been rectified by determining percentage of marks without extra optional meaning thereby percentage has been calculated taking 528 marks to have been served out of 900. Therefore, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the authority in the matter of awarding marks in +2 so far as it relates to the petitioner. It is submitted that no erratic method of career evaluation has been followed or adopted during the selection to the post of Procurement Inspector. Rather the selection has been done with utmost transparency and fair manner on mark basis on the basis of application invited on on-line basis in conformity with the advertisement issued. The decision for selection to the post on the basis of career marks was taken by a High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Minister in order to complete the selection of manpower by Orissa Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. for early implementation of the recommendation of Justice Wadhwa Commission on Public Distribution System/reform. The procedure of selection was clearly spelt out in the advertisement for the post. Accordingly, a Recruitment Committee was constituted for the purpose under Rule 9(3) of OSCSC Employees Rule-1993. The recruitment to the post has been made on the basis of recommendations made by the Recruitment Committee. 8. It appears from the advertisement that the total post advertised for the Scheduled Caste category was 66 including the post reserved for women. It was decided in the 1st Recruitment Committee Meeting held on 23.07.2011 to validate hard copy of application to the tune of 5 times of the post in each category and accordingly in the category of Scheduled Caste those who secured more than 66% weightage mark from top were only considered for validation. It was decided in the 1st Recruitment Committee Meeting held on 23.07.2011 to validate hard copy of application to the tune of 5 times of the post in each category and accordingly in the category of Scheduled Caste those who secured more than 66% weightage mark from top were only considered for validation. Thus 305 applications were initially decided for validation to fill up 55 posts under Scheduled Caste category for which advertisement was made. Subsequently with due approval of the next Recruitment Committee meeting the cut-off weightage mark was reduced to 65% for validation to accommodate more applicants in the said category. The total weightage mark of the petitioner was calculated at 63.66% on the basis of the online data submitted by him at the time of filing of application. As the total weightage percentage of the petitioner was less than 65% his application was not considered for validation. On the basis of data furnished by the petitioner he has secured 574 marks out of 1100 including extra optional and 528 out of 900 without extra optional in his +2 examination. All the applicants at the time of submission of their online applications were instructed to fill up the marks secured by them in different examination. The petitioner at the time of application had submitted his total +2 mark including extra optional i.e. 1100 instead of 900. Therefore, his application was later validated his +2 marks has been corrected as 528 out of 900 without extra optional and his calculated weightage percentage for his +2 mark has been revised to 11.7% instead of 9.60% as calculated earlier. After validation the petitioner’s total weightage mark stands at 65.31%. At the time of publication of provisional merit list, the petitioner had made an objection. Consequently, a Sub-Committee was constituted by the Recruitment Committee for examination and disposal of the objection received against the provisional merit list published. The conversion of CGPA mark secured by the petitioner in his B. Tech was converted to percentage on the basis of the communication received from the Registrar, BPUT addressed to DCA-cum-Joint Secretary to Govt. in FS & CW Department and thus the objection for recalculation of his B.Tech mark was not considered by the Sub-Committee. 9. The selection of the applicants to the post was made purely on the basis of marks secured by them. in FS & CW Department and thus the objection for recalculation of his B.Tech mark was not considered by the Sub-Committee. 9. The selection of the applicants to the post was made purely on the basis of marks secured by them. As the procedure prescribed for conversion of CGPA mark to percentage by the different technical institutions and universities were not uniform, the matter was placed before the Recruitment Committee for decision. In absence of no clear cut guideline uniformly applicable to all technical institutes for conversion of CGPA marks to percentage the Recruitment Committee in its 2nd meeting held on 02.08.2011 decided that the guideline communicated by the Registrar, BPUT dated 06.12.2010 addressed to DCA-cum-Joint Secretary to Govt., FS & CW Department shall be followed. Accordingly, CGPA mark of the applicant of the other technical institute was calculated as per the communication received from their institute/universities. Hence due care has been taken while converting the CGPA mark to percentage in order to avoid any possible discrimination to any meritorious student in the process of selection. 10. The petitioner at the time of application has furnished the information in the graduation column that his final CGPA mark in his B.Tech examination is 7.30 out of total 10 grade point. The final semester grade-sheet of the petitioner indicates that he has tried to get selected to the post by giving inflated CGPA mark in his graduate mark at the time of application by enhancing his final CGPA grade point to 7.30 from 7.22 grade point. The last cut-off mark for the SC category during the first merit list was 71.91% and for SC women category was 69.41%. But due to non-joining of selected applicants in the S.C. category, a second merit list and a waiting merit list was also published to fill up the remaining vacancies. The cut-off mark for the S.C. category in both these list was 70.78% and 70.06% respectively. The petitioner had also made an objection during the publication of the merit list and after examination of the same by the Sub-Committee constituted for the purpose, the same was not considered. But, the petitioner has secured 65.31% which was much below the mark secured by the selected candidates. Consequently, he has not been selected for the post of Procurement Inspector. 11. But, the petitioner has secured 65.31% which was much below the mark secured by the selected candidates. Consequently, he has not been selected for the post of Procurement Inspector. 11. There is no pleading available on the record indicating which of the selected candidate has been considered by awarding erroneous CGPA marks. In absence of any specific pleadings in the application in the matter of calculation of CGPA marks in respect of other candidates, this Court is refrained from making any observation for awarding different CGPA marks for different candidate and more so they are not parties before this Court so as to examine their case by offering opportunity of hearing. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity committed by the opposite parties in the matter of selection of Procurement Inspector of the Corporation. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.