PRAVAT RANJAN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were the applicants for the direct recruitment test held in the year 1992 -93 for the post of S.I. of Police. Since they were not selected, they approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 2798 (C) of 1994 challenging the entire recruitment process. The above O.A. came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by judgment dated 8.11.1996 alongwith three other O.As. By that judgment, the Tribunal directed to reduce the marks fixed for viva vocetest notionally and to proportionately arrive at marks secured by the candidates in the viva vocetest accordingly. Since there was non -compliance of the order, the petitioners filed I.P. No. 133 (C) of 1997, but the same was dismissed by order dated 21.11.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a writ application before this Court, which was registered as OJC No. 173 of 1998. On 3.2.2005, the above OJC was disposed of with the direction to implement the judgment of the Tribunal considering the cases of all the candidates who had appeared in the viva vice test.

(2.) AS it appears, the opposite parties did not consider the case of the petitioners for which they again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2033 (C) of 2005, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 6.10.2005. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, the present writ application has been filed.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : (1981)IILLJ297SC ; and Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J and K and Ors. : [1995]1SCR908 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has made scrutiny of the fact whether there was arbitrariness in allotting marks in the interview on the ground as to whether the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test were available to the Members of the Interview Committee or not and in both the cases the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the marks of the written examination were not made available to the Members of the Interview Committee. In the case of Lila Dhar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed: We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission on whose behalf a counter affidavit has been filed before us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the Interview Board either before or at the time of the interview.... In the case of Madan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:..In this connection, we may also profitably recapitulate what is stated in para 2 of the affidavit in reply of Dr. Girija Dhar. She has clearly stated that as a matter of fact the particulars furnished by the candidates in their applications in pursuance of the advertisement only had been placed before the Members of the Interview Board. The results of the candidates at the written examination were not placed before the Members of the Interview Board. These averments could not be successfully challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, it must be held that the members of the Interview Committee were not knowing as to what marks were obtained by the candidates at the written test. Therefore, there would be no occasion for them to manipulate the marks of any candidate at the oral interview so as to bring them in the light of the marks obtained by him in the written test, to a total which would make him eligible to be included in the select list of first 11 candidates as there were only 11 clear vacancies....