WA/80/2026 of SANTOSH KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs ODISHA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,KHURDA on 28 July 2026

ORDER

28.07.2026

01.

1. The Appellant has filed the instant Intra-Court Appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 04.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.39504 of 2023, wherein the order dated 31.08.2018 by which the claim of the Appellant with regard to the decision of the authority in not calling the Appellant for viva voce test was rejected.

2. According to the Appellant, he offered his candidature as an unreserved male candidate and appeared in the written examination. He secured 159 marks but later found that persons who had secured fewer marks than the Appellant were called for the viva voce test. Perceiving such action to be discriminatory, the Appellant approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1819(C) of 2015, seeking a direction that he should also be permitted to appear for the viva voce test. The Tribunal, after noticing the plea taken by the Appellant, disposed of the said proceeding by directing the Commission to verify whether any person having secured less than 159 marks in the UR category had been called for the viva voce test and, in the event it was found to be true, an appropriate order should be passed permitting the Appellant to appear for such test. Pursuant to the said direction passed by the Tribunal, the Commission rejected the claim of the Appellant with the categorical finding that the last candidate who was called for the viva voce test under the UR (Male) category had secured 201 marks, which is much higher than the marks obtained by the Appellant. The Appellant challenged the said order by filing the Writ Petition, which was also dismissed, taking note of the aforesaid facts, and the same is sought to be assailed in the instant Court Appeal on the premise that the advertisement did not indicate any cut-off marks to be fixed by the Commission for calling candidates for the interview. Initially, the Appellant challenged the action of the authority by taking a plea of discrimination, contending that candidates appearing at serial numbers 225 to 246 were called for the interview, whereas the Appellant, despite securing a higher position, was discriminated against.

3. The authority as well as the learned Single Judge found that those candidates belonged to a special category and, therefore, the Appellant could not equate himself with those candidates. The learned Single Judge did not find any discrimination perpetrated against the Appellant. However, learned counsel for the Appellant took another route by contending that since the advertisement did not permit the fixation of any cut-off marks for the viva voce test, the action of the authority was tainted with malice and the Appellant should have been permitted to appear for the viva voce test. It appears that the Appellant is constantly changing his stand at different stages of the proceeding in pursuit of bringing himself within the zone of consideration for the viva voce test. If the advertisement clearly provides the marks earmarked for each tier of the recruitment process and the Appellant, being conscious of the same, participated therein, it is too late in the day to turn around and challenge the entire selection process on such a ground.

4. Furthermore, the advertisement has vividly and succinctly disclosed the number of posts allotted to each category, and being conscious of the same, the Appellant offered his candidature under the UR (Male) category. In the event that the persons who secured higher marks than those obtained by the Appellant were called for the interview, taking into account the number of posts for which the recruitment process was undertaken, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in this regard. A person who did not secure the requisite marks cannot approach the Court and take shelter under the plea that, if the authorities did not fix any cut-off marks, they could not exclude any person who appeared in the written test from appearing in the viva voce test. It is within the competence of the recruiting authorities to fix the number of candidates to be called for the viva voce test and, in such a process, if the last candidate called had secured higher marks than the Appellant, we do not find any incongruity in adopting such a process. Merit has to be given preference, and if the recruitment process is based on merit, the writ Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with such decision of the authority. Since the plea of discrimination does not apply in the instant case, and the last candidate called for the viva voce test had secured much higher marks than those secured by the Appellant, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

5. The Appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2026 17:44:18 Signature Not Verified