NIBAS PRUSTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four Writ Petitions filed against the common Judgment and Order Dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dismissing the four Original Applications filed by these Petitioners registered as O.A. Nos. 1877 of 1988,2347 of 2000,2516 of 2000 and 565 of 2001.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that pursuant to separate advertisements issued by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission during different years inviting applications for recruitment to various posts which were under the administrative control of different Heads of Departments, the Petitioners applied for different posts recruitment for which was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. Anil Kumar Sahoo, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4043 of 2006 applied for the post of Assistant Jailor pursuant to advertisement No. 1643/OSSC dated 7.9.1995 whereas Nibas Prusti, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4946 of 2003 was a candidate for the post of Junior Correctional Officer pursuant to advertisement No. 299/OSSC dated 9.2.2000. Chitta Ranjan Das, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5824 of 2003 and Santosh Kumar Nayak, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4947 of 2003 applied respectively for the post of A.S.I./Operator Mechanic and Sergeant and Jamadar advertised by the Commission vide advertisement No. 2740/OSSC dated 23.12.1999. All the Petitioners appeared at the recruitment conducted by the Commission and became unsuccessful. They challenged the selection by filing four O.As. before the Tribunal on the ground that though the advertisements in all the cases postulated that the select list shall be prepared in order of merit on the basis of sum -total of marks obtained in written test, viva voce test and career evaluation and keeping in view the reserved vacancies, the case of the Petitioners was excluded on the ground that they did not secure the minimum qualifying marks In the viva -voce test though the advertisements did not so require. Their grievance before the Tribunal was that the marks secured by them in viva voce test should have been added to prepare the select list in order of merit. The Commission in its reply did not deny to have applied minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test while preparing the select list. Its plea was that the Commission is entitled to regulate the process of selection and no exception can be taken if the Commission considered the cases of those candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances and relying upon a Judgment of this Court, i.e. O.J.C. Nos. 9905 and 10570 of 1998 (Ranjan Kumar Dash and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. disposed of 4.5.2001) dismissed the O.As. filed by the Petitioners. The aforesaid two Writ Petitions were filed against the Judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1127 of 1996 in which the Tribunal quashed the selection of S.S.Os. and directed for a fresh selection holding that the minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Commission in the interview was illegal in absence of any stipulation to that effect in the advertisement. This Court on consideration of the matter held that the Commission had the authority to prescribe a minimum qualifying mark in the interview test. It was also just and proper to fix a minimum qualifying marks since in absence of any prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the interview, the interview test itself becomes redundant. So holding, it quashed the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) NO minimum qualifying marks was fixed for viva voce test in respect of all these four posts. The Petitioners who had qualified in the written test, had been called for interview. Therefore, their plea is that no minimum qualifying marks could have been fixed, after the selection process started or at the time when the Petitioners were called for interview.