Case: State of Odisha &amp; Ors Vs. Arati Mohapatra

M.P. No.729(C)/2006 approached the High Court in the abovestated writ petition. The High Court on taking note of the sequence of events, took into consideration the marks which was originally awarded to the respondent i.e., 114.80 marks, more particularly relying on the details of the minutes dated 31.01.1997 which was obtained by the respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (for short RTI Act) wherein the name of the respondent appeared at Serial No.301 as she had been awarded 114.80 marks. The learned Division Bench of the High Court accordingly directed the appellants herein to treat the respondent as having secured 114.80 marks in the selection list and communicate a reasoned order to the respondent within three months. The review filed against the said order was dismissed keeping in view the limited scope available in review, rather than adverting to the contentions put forth on merit to seek review. It is in that light, the appellants being aggrieved are before this Court. 8. We have heard Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the appeals papers including the written submission filed on behalf of both parties. 9. The sequence of the events noted above and the series of litigation between the parties including the challenge to the original selection list by a group of unsuccessful candidates which led to the formation of a re-selection committee and the preparation of re-selected list after considering the matter afresh is not in serious dispute. Though the genesis for the earlier select list being cancelled and the re-selection list being published was the allegation made by the unsuccessful candidates in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and analogous petitions that there was foul play in the process, the fact that the select list has been re-arranged based on the marks obtained is evident from the facts narrated above. It is also undisputed that the respondent is not one of those candidates against whom an allegation is made with regard to the submission of fabricated documents for obtaining appointment. In fact this aspect is clear from the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by SAT in M.P. No.729(C)/2006. In the said order, the reason to justify the termination of respondent is taken note, which is that the respondent had obtained 109.88 marks and was accordingly placed at the appropriate spot in the re-select list. The said marks was lesser than the last selected candidate in the general category, who had obtained 111.53 marks. 10. Against the above backdrop, it is noticed that the only reason for which the High Court has intervened and directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent by reckoning the marks secured by her as 114.80 is by taking note of the information secured under RTI Act relied upon by the respondent, wherein the minutes dated 31.01.1997 indicated the marks obtained by the respondent as 114.80 marks and she was placed at Serial No.301. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the conclusion reached by the High Court since according to him the information was obtained from the official files under the RTI Act and such information would justify that the respondent having obtained 114.80 marks is entitled to be selected, which action has been directed by the High Court to be taken by the petitioners herein. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would, on the other hand, contend that the error in the conclusion reached by the High Court is due to the fact that the reliance was placed on the list which was prepared on 31.01.1997, the details of which were furnished under the RTI Act. Though that was the position in the list finalised on 31.01.1997, the same had been set aside by the SAT in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and due to the orders passed therein, subsequent thereto a re-selection list was prepared. In the said process the marks were correctly assigned wherein the marks obtained by the respondent in the viva voce was 14.40 which while added to her marks obtained towards matriculation of 44.42 marks and 51.04 marks in the competitive test, the total would add up to 109.86 and not 114.80 marks as claimed. Hence, it is contended that the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. 13. In the light of the above, the only question for consideration is as to whether the High Court was justified in taking note of the information merely because it was secured under the RTI Act, to be the basis for its conclusion. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified and had fallen into error. This is for the reason that the information furnished under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable. In the re-select list, the name of the respondent is shown at Serial No.474 having obtained 109.86 marks. The marks awarded by the three Selection Committee members in the Viva-voce is shown as 16;20.20 and 7, the total of which to be divided by 3 will work out to the average of 14.40 marks in Viva-voce. The same if added to the career marks of 95.46, the total would be 109.86 marks which is in consonance with the stand taken and contention put forth by the appellants. 14. Hence, all these aspects will reveal that, though it had been shown as 114.80 marks in the list which was finalised on 31.01.1997, when it is admitted that the said list had been set aside by the SAT accepting the allegations of the applicants therein that the list had not been appropriately prepared, neither the respondent nor the High Court ought to have placed reliance on the same when the re-selection list prepared afresh was acted upon for appointment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. The sequence of the events noted above and the series of litigation between the parties including the challenge to the original selection list by a group of unsuccessful candidates which led to the formation of a re-selection committee and the preparation of re-selected list after considering the matter afresh is not in serious dispute. Though the genesis for the earlier select list being cancelled and the re-selection list being published was the allegation made by the unsuccessful candidates in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and analogous petitions that there was foul play in the process, the fact that the select list has been re-arranged based on the marks obtained is evident from the facts narrated above. It is also undisputed that the respondent is not one of those candidates against whom an allegation is made with regard to the submission of fabricated documents for obtaining appointment. In fact this aspect is clear from the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by SAT in M.P. No.729(C)/2006. In the said order, the reason to justify the termination of respondent is taken note, which is that the respondent had obtained 109.88 marks and was accordingly placed at the appropriate spot in the re-select list. The said marks was lesser than the last selected candidate in the general category, who had obtained 111.53 marks.10. Against the above backdrop, it is noticed that the only reason for which the High Court has intervened and directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent by reckoning the marks secured by her as 114.80 is by taking note of the information secured under RTI Act relied upon by the respondent, wherein the minutes dated 31.01.1997 indicated the marks obtained by the respondent as 114.80 marks and she was placed at Serial No.301.We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified and had fallen into error. This is for the reason that the information furnished under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable. In the re-select list, the name of the respondent is shown at Serial No.474 having obtained 109.86 marks. The marks awarded by the three Selection Committee members in the Viva-voce is shown as 16;20.20 and 7, the total of which to be divided by 3 will work out to the average of 14.40 marks in Viva-voce. The same if added to the career marks of 95.46, the total would be 109.86 marks which is in consonance with the stand taken and contention put forth by the appellants.14. Hence, all these aspects will reveal that, though it had been shown as 114.80 marks in the list which was finalised on 31.01.1997, when it is admitted that the said list had been set aside by the SAT accepting the allegations of the applicants therein that the list had not been appropriately prepared, neither the respondent nor the High Court ought to have placed reliance on the same when the re-selection list prepared afresh was acted upon for appointment.