MANADA DEHURI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was originally filed and registered as O.A. No.3110(C) of 2013 on the File of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Petition has been transferred to this Court for being decided under the provision of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Writ Petition involves the following relief claimed :-

(3.) Short background involving the case is that being a Graduate and belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, the Petitioner finding himself unemployed came across an advertisement, vide Notification No.1329 dtd. 31/5/2011 published by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of total 30 posts of Sub-Inspector of Excise under the Excise Commissioner in the Oriya Daily, "The Samaj". The advertisement involved showing the vacancy position category-wise by way of bringing in vacancy to fifty posts through Corrigendum dtd. 1/10/2011. The Petitioner satisfying the eligibility criteria applied against the advertisement. Considering him for meeting with the advertisement requirement, the Petitioner was directed to appear in the written test scheduled to be held on 15/1/2012. The Petitioner claims to have cleared the written test and thus declared qualified to appear the physical test on 14/3/2012 by virtue of intimation dtd. 25/2/2012. The Petitioner was assigned with Roll No.19111700856. The Petitioner claiming to have been successful in the physical test was allowed to appear the viva voce test meant for the Scheduled Caste Category. Advertisement indicated five posts were earmarked for Scheduled Caste Category. After the whole process is over, select list for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise was prepared on 22/3/2012. The Petitioner got shocked in not finding his name in the select list of 50 persons finds place in Annexure-3. The Petitioner thus applied for the marks secured by him as well as the cut off mark involved therein. In Paragraph-6.6 of the Petition, the Petitioner claimed, he has been provided with all such information applying the provision of the Right to Information Act. In Paragraph-6.7 thereof the Petitioner claimed, he fell short by two marks. The Petitioner at this stage applied for photocopies of the questions and the OMR Answer Sheet involving General Study Paper of that particular Examination. Simultaneously, the Petitioner also applied for supply of photocopy of the General Studies Answer Key of the Set Code-6 relating to the Sub-Inspector of Excise Examination, 2011. For not getting any information on his R.T.I. Application, the Petitioner filed an Appeal. Finally the Petitioner was supplied with questions of General Studies with Set Code-6 OMR Answer Sheet and the answer key of General Studies with Set Code-6 respectively. After coming to possess the above on evaluation of his answer sheet with the OMR Answer Sheet and the marking as well, the Petitioner found as against question nos.58, 71, 84 and 88, there has been wrong answer keys by the Authority. The Petitioner also claimed to have found in spite of his giving correct answer but for feeding of wrong answers by the Authority, the Petitioner's answer on these particular questions have been held to be negative. On the premises that there has been wrong answer fed in the answer key involving the aforesaid questions, the Petitioner claimed, there has been wrong evaluation and as a consequence, it is claimed, had there been proper answer in the answer key involving General Studies with Set Code-6, the Petitioner would have surely got full marks in respect of the question indicated herein above and as a consequence, the Petitioner would have scored much higher marks than the marks awarded to him. In the process, the Petitioner claimed for at least re-evaluation of answers of the Petitioner and placing him in appropriate place further providing him an employment pursuant to the advertisement involved herein.