ANANTA CHARAN SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction for modification of the orders under Annexures18 and 20 to the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to consider his case in the D.P.C. which is going to be held in near future for promotion to the rank of Fire Officer and for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 3 to reevaluate the answer sheet of the Petitioner by treating his answers in the same manner as done in respect of others and communicate the result thereof declaring him to have passed in the said Departmental (Accounts) Examination, 2007.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as narrated in the Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as Station Officer at Baliguda Fire Station on 7.3.1984. Accordingly he joined in his post. While he was continuing as such, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Fire Officer in the month of February, 1997 and posted at Bhadrak Fire Station. Subsequently the Petitioner was also promoted to the rank of Deputy Fire Officer on ad -hoc basis vide Home Department Notification No. 969 dated 24.5.2004 and posted to Northern Range, Sambalpur. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, he was allowed to continue on regular basis in the rank of Deputy Fire Officer on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Home Department Notification No. 484 dated 9.3.2005. Accordingly, he is continuing as Deputy, Fire Officer at Northern Range, Sambalpur till date and during his service periods, the Petitioner has been performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authorities and having good service records.

(3.) IT is further averred in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner was surprised to know that he has secured only 94 marks which is less than pass mark i.e. 100 out of 160 marks. The marks secured by Petitioner are not at all trustworthy, since it contains very low marks in comparison to the marks expected by him. It proves that the Petitioner's answer paper has not been properly examined and there was careless and whimsical valuation by the in experienced examiner which clearly shows non -application of mind by the examiner.