IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) Nos.29302, 18990, 29214, 29382, 29383, 29430,

29433, 29465, 29491, 29492, 29530, 29532, 29534, 29535, 29536, 29537,

29538, 29539, 29540, 29543, 29547, 29551, 29552, 29553, 29554, 29555,

29556, 29681, 29692, 29694, 29708, 29709, 29720, 29723, 29742, 29743,

29746, 29750, 29753, 29764, 29767, 29772, 29778, 29880, 29882, 29886,

29887, 29888, 29892, 29893, 29895, 29902, 29903, 29904, 29907, 29908,

29910, 29913, 29918, 29923, 29938, 29963, 29976, 29980, 29999, 30004,

30005, 30006, 30007, 30008, 30010, 30013, 30015, 30016, 30019, 30021,

30022, 30023, 30024, 30025, 30028, 30066, 30068, 30091, 30095, 30097,

30107, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30155, 30164, 30166, 30170, 30173, 30174,

30189, 30190, 30193, 30197, 30199, 30203, 30220, 30228, 30301, 30333,

30335, 30337, 30339, 30340, 30341, 30343, 30344, 30345, 30348, 30350,

30352, 30353, 30354, 30356, 30357, 30367, 30369, 30370, 30371, 30373,

30378, 30379, 30380, 30384, 30385, 30394, 30395, 30397, 30405, 30407,

30408, 30410, 30413, 30415, 30416, 30420, 30421, 30423, 30425, 30426,

30427, 30429, 30431, 30432, 30433, 30436, 30438, 30440, 30442, 30443,

30444, 30447, 30452, 30461, 30471, 30473, 30475, 30600, 30656, 30663,

30701, 30706, 30718, 30733, 30739, 30756, 30771, 30834, 30840, 30843,

30849, 30852, 30856, 30858, 30860, 30866, 30917, 30918, 30941, 30948,

31076, 31088, 31176, 31242, 31296, 31336, 31341, 31410, 31439, 31443,

31451, 31456, 31458, 31464, 31467, 31470, 31473, 31474, 31478, 31483,

31495, 31496, 31500, 31502, 31507, 31578, 31604, 31620, 31629, 31650,

31699, 31739, 31775, 31776, 32073, 32093, 32095, 32101, 32103, 32107,

32178, 32181, 32314, 32501, 32798, 32907, 32937, 32990, 33129, 33149,

33153, 33184, 35364, 35434, 37597 & 37576 of 2025

W.P.(C) No. 29302 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

………………

Soumya Ranjan Satapathy …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate

along with

Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate

// 2 //

Page 2 of 44

Ms. Charvi, Advocate

Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

along with

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Arabinda Tripathy,

Addl. Govt. Advocate

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 04.02.2026 & Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

Since the issue involved in the present batch of writ

petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and

disposed of by the present common order. However, for the sake of

convenience, W.P.(C) No. 29302 of 2025 was taken as the leading

case, so far as pleadings and documents are concerned.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging order

dtd.10.10.2025 so passed by the Odisha Sub-Ordinate Staff Selection

Commission (in short Commission). Vide such a common order

passed on 10.10.2025, the Commission while disposing the issue so

involved in a common show-cause issued on 19.02.2025, came to the

following finding:-

// 3 //

Page 3 of 44

“Therefore, after due examination of the show cause reply

and facts as stated above, the Commission is not satisfied with

your show cause reply and further ordered that you are given an

opportunity to take another test of similar standard and secure

the minimum qualifying marks meant for your category as per

clause No. 10 A) (iii) of the advertisement No.762(C)/OSSSC

dt.20.10.2023 to confirm your minimum capability in the

aforesaid recruitment examination to enable you to retain your

position in the Provisional Merit List. If you fail to take the

aforesaid test you shall not be allowed to participate in the next

stages of this recruitment process. This test shall not be a new

examination but a confirmatory exercise to ensure that in nocent

candidates are not deprived and no undeserving candidate gets

selected.”

3. Mr. B. Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in

the batch of writ petitions along with other learned Sr. Counsels as

well as learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that

the Commission issued an advertisement vide Advertisement No. II-

47/2023/762/OSSSC dtd.20.10.2023 for Combined Recruitment

Examination-2023 for 719 posts for Livestock Inspector, 316 posts for

Forester and 1677 posts for Forest Guard. Requisite qualification for

all the aforesaid three (3) posts and the Scheme of Examination so

reflected in the advertisement dtd.20.12.2023, morefully described in

Para 3(A)(i) and Para 10 reads as follows:-

“3. Eligibility Criteria:

A) Age & Educational Qualification: -

// 4 //

Page 4 of 44

(i) The minimum and the maximum age, educational qualification of the

candidates for the posts shall be as mentioned below:

Post wise Age and Educational Qualification

Sl

No.

Name of

the Post

Minimum Educational Qualification Age

1 Livestock

Inspector

The candidate must have passed the

+2 Vocational Courses in the field of

Animal Husbandry or Dairy or

Poultry or Meat or Animal Production

or +2 Science from a recognised

Educational Institution or Board or

Council or University and the Gomitra

candidates must have passed +2

Science or +2 Vocational Courses in

the allied Animal Husbandry activities

with satisfactory performance in

Artificial Insemination(A.I.) activities

for three years under National Project

for Cattle and Buffalo

Breeding(NPCBB).

The

candidate

must have

attained

the age of

18 years

and must

not be

above the

age of 38

years as

on 1"

January

2023.

2 Forester The candidate must have passed +2

Science from recognized university,

Institution or Board as the case may

be with knowledge in basic Computer

skills.

3 Forest

Guard

The candidate must have passed High

School Certificate Examination (10+)

from recognized Board or Institution.

• Date of birth as recorded in the HSC certificate issued by the Board of

Secondary Education, Odisha or equivalent certificate issued by any

recognized Board/Council/Indian University shall only be accepted.

• The candidate must have the prescribed minimum educational

qualification as on the closing date of submission of online application.

10. Plan of examination:

The Combined Recruitment Examination shall consist of the following

stages.

A) Written Test:

// 5 //

Page 5 of 44

There shall be a Written Test of 150 marks (MCQ type in OMR

System) in one paper as detailed below:

Paper Subjects of

Written Test

No. of

questions

Maximum

Marks

Time

One

Paper

English 25 25

2½ ours

Odia 25 25

Arithmetic 25 25

General

Knowledge

25 25

Computer

Knowledge

25 25

General

Science

25 25

Total 150 150

Note:

(i) The Written Test shall be of the standard of 10th High School Certificate

Examination.

(ii) In the Written Test, there shall be negative marking @0.50 mark per question

for wrong/multiple answers.

(iii)In the Written Test, the minimum qualifying marks for ST, SC, PWD, Ex-

Servicemen and Sportsperson category of candidates shall be 30% and the

minimum qualifying marks for candidates other than ST, SC, PWD, Ex-

Servicemen and Sportsperson categories shall be 35%. The minimum qualifying

marks for Gomitra candidates only shall be 20%.

B) Physical Test:

Candidates shall be shortlisted/screened @ 3 times, the number of vacancies

advertised category/special category wise as per merit on the basis of the

performance in Written Test (marks secured / awarded) and the candidates so

screened shall be called for Physical Test.

There shall be Physical Test comprising of Physical Standard Measurement

(PSM) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of

Livestock Inspector, Forester and Forest Guard.

The Physical Test shall be conducted at the District Headquarters.

// 6 //

Page 6 of 44

(I) Physical Standard Measurement Test (PSM):

All eligible candidates shall have to appear the Physical Standard Measurement

(PSM) Test before the District Level Selection Board for Physical Test constituted

for the purpose la the respective districts for which they have applied to appear

for Written Test in their application.

The candidate must possess the following minimum physical standard of Height

and Chest. Those who do not qualify in any of the physical measurement tests of

Height or Chest, shall not be allowed to participate in any further test in the

recruitment process.

(a) The candidates for Livestock Inspector must have the minimum physical

standard of Height and Chest, as detailed below:

Category Height Chest

Male candidates of UR/SEBC

category

5’2” Unexpanded 30”

Male candidates SC/ST

category

5’ Unexpanded 30”

Female candidates of all

categories

5’

(b) The candidates for Forester/Forest Guard must have the minimum physical

standard of Height and Chest, as detailed below:

Category

Minimum

Height (in

cm)

Minimum Chest (in cm)

Un-expanded Expanded

Men UR/SEBC/SC 168 81 Up to 5 cm

ST 158 81 Up to 5 cm

Women UR/SEBC/SC/ST 153

Provided that candidates having color blindness shall be deemed to be a

disqualification for the posts of Forester and Forest Guard.

(II) Physical Efficiency Test (PET):

The candidates who qualify in the Physical Standard Measurement (PSM) Tests

mentioned above, shall be required to appear at the Physical Efficiency Test

(PET). Before undergoing PET, each candidate must submit an undertaking in the

prescribed format to the effect that he/she is fit and willing to undergo the same at

// 7 //

Page 7 of 44

his/her own risks and responsibilities. The authority conducting such tests shall

not be held responsible for any injury or loss sustained during or after the tests.

The PET shall comprise of the following events which are qualifying in nature.

(a) Male/Female candidate for the post of Livestock Inspector (All Categories)

Sl.

No.

Type of Physical Efficiency

Test

Remarks

(i) Cycling The candidate must have

knowledge of Cycling

(b) Male candidate for the post of Forester/Forest Guard (All Categories)

Sl.

No.

Type of Physical Efficiency

Test

Qualifying distance/time

(i) Walking 25 kms. In 4 hours

Female candidates for the post of Forester/Forest Guard (All Categories)

Sl.

No.

Type of Physical Efficiency

Test

Remarks

(i) Walking 16 kms. In 4 hours

3.1. It is contended that the Commission in terms of the advertisement

conducted the written test on different dates beginning from

24.04.2024 and ending on 07.05.2024, in Computer Based

Recruitment Examination (in short CBRE), in 95 different centers

across the State of Odisha.

3.2. It is contended that the Commission initially published the

provisional screening list of 8496 candidates on 03.09.2024 declaring

them to have qualified in the written examination. Even though the

present Petitioners qualified in the written examination and were in

the list of 8496 qualified candidates, but the Commission out of those

// 8 //

Page 8 of 44

8496 candidates, allowed 8159 candidates to appear the physical test

and the rest 337 candidates, which includes the present Petitioners

were debarred to appear the physical test.

3.3. It is contended that after debarring such 337 candidates from

appearing the physical test, the Commission issued a common show-

cause to all those 337 candidates on 19.02.2025 inter alia with the

following contents: -

“A number of allegations have been received regarding

adoption of unfair means during the Combined Recruitment

Examination - 2023 (II) held between 24th April to 07th May,

2024 in CBRE mode by some undeserving candidates having

very poor academic records and poor performance in the

previous recruitment examination conducted by the

Commission. Your answer sheet has been examined. Analysis

reveals that you have secured unexpectedly very high score in

the Written Test under CRE-2023 (II) which appears to be

incongruent with your academic records.

You are, therefore, called upon to show cause in writing to the

Commission explaining as to why action as deemed proper

under Rule-18 of Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection

Commission (District Cadre) Rules, 2012 shall not be taken

against you for adopting unfair means by violating the

instructions contained in the Admission Letter for the Written

Test in the Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 (II) for the

posts of Livestock Inspector, Forester and Forest Guard.

Your show cause reply to this notice should reach this

Commission by email/Regd post latest by 15.03.2025. In case

// 9 //

Page 9 of 44

you fail to submit your reply in writing within the specified date

as mentioned above, it will be construed that you have nothing

to explain in your defence and decision as deemed fit will be

taken against you by the Commission”

3.4. It is contended that such a show-cause was issued to all the 337

candidates including the present Petitioners and that too after

publication of the written examination result on 03.09.2024, basing on

the minutes of the meeting held on 08.10.2024 under Annexure-7 so

communicated by the Govt. in the G.A. & P.G. Department vide letter

dtd.17.10.2024 and notification issued by the self-same Department

on 25.10.2024 under Annexure-8 and letter dtd.13.02.2025 under

Annexure-9.

3.5. It is contended by the learned counsels appearing for the Parties

that the Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary in the minutes of

the meeting dtd.08.10.2024 took various decisions after demand was

made by various candidates /general people for cancellation of the

recruitment examination, so conducted by the Commission pursuant to

the advertisement dtd.20.10.2023. However, the Committee in the said

meeting while dealing with the complaints made by some

students/candidates/general people, came to a conclusion that the

Commission has not received any report from any observer/district

administration, regarding dislocation in conducting the

// 10 //

Page 10 of 44

RI/ARI/Amin/ICDS Supervisor/SFS preliminary examination;

excepting a lone incident of SSB Edutech (Nayapalli, BBSR) where,

only on 30.09.2024, the first batch examination was started late by an

hour or so, due to some local server problem and that also led to

delayed start of 2

nd

ad 3

rd

batch of the examination. The committee

after coming to such a conclusion, also took various decisions and the

decision so taken, reads as follows:-

“(6) The matter was discussed in great detail, including pros and

cons of CBT mode examination and conventional pen/paper

examination, and following decisions were taken.

(a) LI/Forester/Forest Guard Examination (conducted in April-

May 2024)

• Physical test, scheduled on 18-21 Oct' 2024, should be deferred till

a thorough analysis of session wise/ centre wise marks obtained by

students is done. This should be completed in a weeks time.

• In view of some specific allegation received by OSSSC about

candidates having very poor academic credentials scoring 100

percentile mark, Eduquity should put up the analysis of the entire

raw score data of candidates in comparison with their earlier

scores available to detect glaring anomaly, if any.

• It should also cross-check the results as per NTA formula whether

any error had been committed while preparing the percentile mark

result already published.

(b) RI/ARI/Amin/ICDS Supervisor/SFS Examination (conducted in

Sept-Oct 2024)

// 11 //

Page 11 of 44

• Candidates should be asked to lodge complaint/grievances, if they

wish to, in OSSSC website. Detailed modalities of receiving

complaints/grievance petitions through User Id & password of

candidates will be intimated to the candidates by OSSSC

separately.

• A high-level committee will be constituted at Government level to

inquire into such complaints/grievances and recommend suitable

action as deemed appropriate

• A press note should be released by GA&PG Department in this

light to assuage feelings of candidates agitating against the

examinations.

(C) For conducting CBTs in future:

CBTs, if conducted properly with all necessary checks and

balances, are much better and safer than conventional examination

in pen/paper mode; especially when number of candidates is in

lakhs. Accordingly, following things should be ensured for future

CBTs to be conducted by OSSSC.

(i) CBTs in future should be held only in Government (Central as

well as State) educational institutions and some reputed semi-

government institutions situated at/in district headquarters and

Municipal Corporations. E&IT Department/OCAC shall assist

State Government educational institutions financially and

technically to develop a capacity of 25,000 nodes (i.e. 25,000

candidates can take CBT examination in one batch). If such

capacity cannot be made in existing Government educational

institutions, E&IT Department/OCAC shall establish dedicated

Government CBT centres at district H.Qs/Municipal Corporations.

For this, E&IT Department shall make necessary budget provision.

OSSSC shall make payment to these centres for conduct of the

exams on a per candidate basis. These centres will also be used for

// 12 //

Page 12 of 44

examinations conducted by other State and National Recruitment

agencies.

(ii) Secondly, examination centres developed by NTA/NRA or

Ministry of Higher Education, Government of India for conduct of

CBT examinations may also be considered for conduct of CBT

examinations by OSSSC..

(iii) OSSSC should also get in touch with NTA/NRA as well as SSC

for obtaining their SOPs for conduct of examinations especially

CBTs and incorporate the best features in their guidelines.

(iv) CBTs in future shall be conducted by OSSSC through

agencies/companies empanelled by NTA/NRA OCAC shall

maintain a list of such agencies /companies and shall also fix their

rate/fee for conducting CBTs.

(v) OCAC shall also empanel agencies/companies for undertaking

cyber forensic audit of computer nodes selected randomly (or on

complaint basis) during CBT examination.

(vi) OSSSC shall engage reputed institutions/organizations for

conducting third party audit of future CBTs wherein the scope of

work will include the entire gamut of conduct of CBT and

processing of result.

(vii) In future, to ensure that no undeserving candidate gets

selected for any Government job, OSSSC shall conduct all its

examinations (whether in CBT mode or in conventional mode)

where number of candidates exceed 50,000, in two-stage format,

i.e. Preliminary Examination followed by Main Examination.

(viii) As the above-mentioned two-stage examination system will

take longer time than single-stage examination system, examination

completion time-line of OSSSC needs to be shortened. In this

regard, proposal submitted by OSSSC to GASPG Department, vide

// 13 //

Page 13 of 44

OSSSC letter No.685 (C)/OSSSC dt.20.07.2024, regarding doing

away with Computer Skill Test should be accepted by Government

for immediate necessary action.

(ix) To facilitate better functioning of OSSSC, GA&PG Department

should urgently man OSSSC with adequate staff at all levels and

approve its new building proposal (on the same land), with

modifications as deemed appropriate.”

3.6. It is contended that thereafter in terms of the decision taken on

08.10.2024, a Committee was constituted to check the veracity of the

allegations made against the conduct of the examination, by the G.A.

& P.G. Departmental vide notification dtd.25.10.2024. The

Committee after going through the materials produced before it by the

Commission and the complaints made in that regard, came to the

following finding so reflected in Para 4 of the report dt.08.02.2025, so

communicated on 13.02.2025 under Annexure-9:-

“4. Concluding Remarks

The Expert Committee finds no large-scale irregularities in the

conduct of the CRE 2023(II) examination but has identified

Isolated instances of unusually high scores. The above analysis

identified 337 candidates (Table 16 of ANNEXURE 6) who

might have adopted unfair means in the examination. The

implementation of a qualifying test for these candidates may

help address these aberrations and reinforce the fairness of the

recruitment process.”

// 14 //

Page 14 of 44

3.7. Relying on the report of the Committee so available under

Annexure-9, it is vehemently contended that, since the Committee

finds no large scale irregularities in the conduct of the examination in

question, but only found isolated instances of unusually high scores of

the identified 337 candidates, basing on such finding, no such show-

cause could have been issued by the Commission, vide show-cause

notice dtd.19.02.2025.

3.8. It is also contended that since the Committee did not find any

large-scale irregularity in the conduct of the examination and only

identified 337 candidates, who might have adopted unfair means in

the examination, basing on such finding of the Committee, the show-

cause issued on 19.02.2025 by the Commission was challenged by the

present Petitioners in a batch of writ petitions.

It is further contended that in absence of any specific material

against those 337 candidates, basing on assumption, no view should

have been expressed basing on which the show-cause dt.19.02.2025

was issued.

3.9. In support of the same, reliance was placed to a decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raja Ram vs. Jai Prakash Singh

// 15 //

Page 15 of 44

& Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 701. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18

of the said judgment has held as follows:-

“18. xxx xxx xxx

There can be no application of the law sans the facts of a

case. The primary ingredients of the law need to be first

established by proper pleading supported by relevant

evidence. Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or

presumptions.

xxx xxx xxx ”

3.10. Reliance was placed to another decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Manohar Lal vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

(Civil Appeal No. 13860 of 2024). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 31 of

the said judgment has held as follows:-

“The disciplinary authority proceeded on the

presumption of the ACP who conducted preliminary

enquiry without any material and concluded that holding

a regular enquiry is not reasonably practicable

Analysing the purport of the proviso and the

interpretation made in the judgment of Tulsiram Patel

(Supra) it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to

satisfy himself that such reasoning as indicated in the

preliminary enquiry report is based on some material,

sufficient to dispense with an enquiry. In absence of the

same, merely belief or a presumption is not sufficient to

record such finding and to deviate from the normal

procedure.”

3.11. It is further contended that the ground on which the show-cause

was issued, does not come under the purview of Rule 18 of the Odisha

// 16 //

Page 16 of 44

Sub-Ordinate Staff Selection Commission (District Cadre) Rules,

2012 and the show-cause so issued is also not coming under any of the

provisions so prescribed under Rule 18(i) to 18(xii). Rule 18 of the

said Rules reads as follows:-

“18. Penalty-A candidate who is or has been, declared by the

Commission to be guilty of -

(i) obtaining support for his candidature by any means; or

(ii) impersonation or

(iii) procuring impersonation by any person or

(iv) submitting fabricated documents or documents which have

been tampered with or

(v) making statements which are incorrect or false or

suppressing material information or

(vi) resorting to any other irregular or improper means in

connection with his candidature for the examination, or

(vii) adopting unfair means during the examination; or

(viii) writing obscene language or pornographic matter in the

scripts

(ix) misbehaving with the fellow examiners or the invigilators

in any manner in the examination hall, or

(x) harassing or causing bodily harm to the staff

employed/engaged by the Commission for the conduct of the

examination; or

// 17 //

Page 17 of 44

(xi) violating any of the instructions contained in the

admission certificates

or

(xii) attempting to commit or, as the case may be, abetting the

Commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing

clauses shall be liable-

(a) to be disqualified by the Commission from the examination

for which he/she is a candidate or

(b) to be debarred, either permanently or for a specified

period-

(i) by the Commission, from appearing in any examination or

selection held by them; or

(ii) by the State Government, from entering to any employment

under them; or

(c) if he is already in service under Government, to

disciplinary action under the appropriate rules:

Provided that no penalty under this rule shall be imposed

except after-

(i) giving the candidate an opportunity of making such

representation to the Commission or Government, as the case

may be, in writing as he/she may wish to make in that behalf;

and

(ii) taking into consideration the representation, if any,

submitted by the candidate within the period allowed to

him/her by the Commission of the Government, as the case

may be.”

// 18 //

Page 18 of 44

3.12. It is contended that though a batch of writ petitions were filed

challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Commission on

19.02.2025, this Court vide a common order passed on 03.09.2025

disposed of those batch of writ petitions inter alia with the following

observation and direction so contained in Para 6 & 6.1:-

“6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing

the present batch of Writ Petitions directs the Petitioners to file

fresh individual replies to the show cause dtd. 19.02.2025 by

taking all the grounds available to them on or before

17.09.2025. On their filing of the replies to the show causes by

the aforesaid date, the Commission shall take a lawful decision

on the same on or before 10.10.2025. However, in the meantime

the Commission is directed to allow the Petitioners and all those

candidates who have been issued with the show cause to take

further tests as prescribed in the advertisement and allow them

to exercise the option in terms of the notice issued on

20.08.2025. However, publication of the final result in respect of

the present Petitioners and the candidates having been issued

with the show-cause will be subject to final outcome of the

decision to be taken by the Commission with regard to the issue

involved.

6.1. This Court considering the submission of the learned

Advocate General direct that 337 posts proportionately from out

of the total advertised posts shall not be filled up, till a final

decision is taken on the issue involved in the show-cause with

due communication to the Petitioners. Petitioners will be at

liberty to approach this Court afresh if they will be aggrieved by

the decision of the Commission. The Commission however is

// 19 //

Page 19 of 44

permitted to proceed with the selection process and publish the

final merit list in respect of other eligible candidates, who have

come out successful in the recruitment process. The State-

Opposite Party is also permitted to fill-up the balance

advertised posts by keeping 337 posts reserved proportionately

to the total advertised posts.”

3.13. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on

03.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 8077 of 2025 & batch, all the Petitioners

filed their respective replies to the show-cause. In the said reply it was

specifically averred that Rule 18 of the 2012 Rules basing on which

the show-cause dtd.19.02.2025 has been issued since is not covering

the alleged illegalities, the show-cause so issued is a nullity in the eye

of law.

3.14. It is also contended that all the Petitioners in their replies also

took a stand that since their academic performance is good and in

absence of any specific finding that they have indulged themselves in

any unfair means in the examination, withholding the result of 337

candidates including that of the Petitioners while publishing the result

of the written examination on 03.09.2024, requires interference of this

Court.

3.15. It is also contended that in terms of order 03.09.2025, all the 337

candidates were allowed by the Commission to take the physical test

// 20 //

Page 20 of 44

and out of those 337 candidates, 314 candidates have qualified the

physical test. It is however contended that without proper appreciation

of the replies filed by the Petitioners to the show-cause dtd.19.02.2025

pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.09.2025, the

Commission vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 directed the

Petitioners to take another test of similar standard and to secure the

minimum qualifying marks meant for each category as per clause No.

10(A)(iii) of the Advertisement No. 762(c) OSSSC dtd.20.10.2023 for

the purpose of retaining the position so published in the provisional

merit list of candidates on 03.09.2024.

3.16. While assailing the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 in each of

the cases, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and other

learned counsels vehemently contended that since after publication of

the written examination result on 03.09.2024, ineligible candidates

and some students made complaints with a prayer to cancel the

recruitment examination and the Committee chaired by the Chief

Secretary on 08.10.2024 came to a definite finding that the

Commission has not received any report from any observer/district

administration regarding dislocation in the conduct of the examination

excepting solitary incident of SSB Edutech, Bhubaneswar on

30.09.2024, on the face of such report of the Committee chaired by

// 21 //

Page 21 of 44

the Chief Secretary, there was no necessity to constitute a Committee

vide notification dtd.25.10.2024 under Annexure-8.

3.17. It is also contended that the Committee so constituted vide

notification dtd.25.10.2024, while submitting the report vide letter

dt.13.02.2025 under Annexure-9, also came to a finding that there is

no large scale irregularity in the conduct of the examination, save and

except the isolated instances of unusually high scores. Basing on such

finding of the Committee, a list of 337 candidates was prepared with

the view that they might have adopted unfair means in the

examination.

3.18. It is vehemently contended that since there is absolutely no proof

that the Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the examination,

basing on mere suspicion, all those 337 candidates which includes the

present Petitioners, could not have been issued with the show-cause

on 19.02.2025 and the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 under

Annexure-17.

3.19. It is contended that since no such material is available either

with the Commission or before the Committee showing that

Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the examination, on mere

suspicion, Petitioners cannot be deprived to get the benefit of

// 22 //

Page 22 of 44

appointment on the face of their qualifying the written examination as

well as the physical test pursuant to order dtd.03.09.2025.

It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the show-cause

dt.19.02.2025 and impugned order dt.10.10.2025, the Commission be

directed to recommend the case of the Petitioners for their

appointment to the posts in question.

3.20. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Public Service

Commission vs. Pankaj Rane & Ors. reported in (2022) 11 SCC 742

and another decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The

Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10.

3.21. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 11 of the Judgment in the case of

Pankaj Rane has held as follows:-

“11. Bearing considerable resemblance as we shall presently

see with the law in the facts is the decision of this Court

starting with P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra), Rule 12 declares

that the Commission is duty bound to forward to the

Government the select list. The select list is to be arranged in

the order of merit of the candidates. The select list is to be sent

arranged in the order of merit which, in turn, is to be

determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained

by each candidate at the competitive written examination and

oral interview. The Rule maker was conscious of the fact that it

// 23 //

Page 23 of 44

has prescribed a separate minimum to be obtained by

candidate in the written examination. It also contemplated the

holding of an interview but as regards the interview a separate

minimum was not stipulated. But at the same time, the law

giver has contemplated that the Commission is to prepare a

select list wherein merit would dictate the order in which the

select list is to be prepared and all that it is to do is to total up

the marks obtained by the candidate in the competitive written

examination and the oral interview. In other words, the merit

list would be dictated by the performance competitive

examination and interview subject only, no doubt, to the

qualification that only those candidates who have obtained 65

marks in the written examination would be qualified. We need

not be detained by the proviso to Rule 12.”

3.22. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 8 & 9 of the judgment in

the case of Kuldeep Singh has held as follows:-

“8. The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be

characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not

supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the

evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could

have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This

principle was laid down by this Court in State of Andhra

Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao, MANU/SC/0222/1963:

(1964)IILLJ150SC, in which the question was whether the High

Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings

recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was

followed In Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jam.

MANU/SC/0416/1968: (1969)IILLJ377SC and Bharat Iron

Works v. Bhagubha Balubhai Patel, MANU/SC/0345/1975:

[1976]2SCR280. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi

Administration through Secretary (Labour),

// 24 //

Page 24 of 44

MANU/SC/0285/1984: (1984)IILLJ517SC It was laid down that

where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence

and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could

come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid

down that where a quasi-judicial Tribunal records findings

based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse

dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers

from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and

stands vitiated.

9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere

with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if

the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a

perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.”

4. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand

made his submission basing on the instruction so provided by the

Commission vide letter dtd.15.11.2025. It is contended that out of the

337 candidates who were issued with the show-cause and after going

through the reply submitted by the candidates pursuant to order

dtd.03.09.2025 of this Court, the Commission found that answer

papers of 35 candidates matched with each other and they have

secured high rank on the face of their poor academic records.

Similarly, the Committee found 78 candidates whose answer papers

are matched and having secured high rank with good academic

records. Similarly, the Committee found 5 candidates whose answer

papers though are not matched but they have secured high rank in the

// 25 //

Page 25 of 44

present test with having poor academic records. Similarly, the

Committee found 28 candidates whose answer papers are matched but

have secured high rank with having poor academic records. The

Committee also found 41 candidates whose answer papers though

have matched but they have got good academic records and lastly the

Committee found 5 candidates whose answer papers though have not

matched, but they have secured high rank with having poor academic

records.

4.1. It is further contended that pursuant to the order passed by this

Court on 03.09.2025, the Commission allowed 337 candidates to take

the physical test and out of those 337 candidates, 19 candidates could

not qualify the physical test. Not only that in the meantime one

candidate has also died and another 3 candidates could not qualify

having secured the mark below the cut-off mark. It is accordingly

contended that out of 337 candidates who were allowed to take

physical test, 314 candidates have come out successful in the physical

test and accordingly 314 posts have been kept reserved pursuant to the

order passed by this Court in the present batch of writ petitions.

4.2. It is also contended that all these Petitioners since pursuant to

order dtd.03.09.2025 were allowed to file their reply to the show-

cause and after due consideration of such reply, the Committee has

// 26 //

Page 26 of 44

come to a finding that various candidates having poor academic

records have secured high rank in the recruitment test, the Committee

decided not to publish their result while rejecting such claim vide the

impugned order dtd.10.10.2025. Instruction reflected in Para 4 to 11

reads as follows:-

“4. That, the first category of cases involves the candidates whose

answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the

present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. The list

of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given hereunder.

Sl. No. Case

Info

WPC of

2025

Name of the

Petitioners

Roll No.

1 30174 Sidhanta Gouda 1066005563

2

30350 Sasmita Sahu 0466011051

29241

3 30394 Regala Jayaram 1066005507

4 30444 Bhabani Prasad

Nayak

1966086836

5 30425 Dalgovinda Giri 1966043118

6 30343 Prashant Kumar

Behera

1166022398

29241

7 30426 Debashisa Panda 2666005723

8 30440 Deepak Kumar

Sahoo

0766028874

29241

9 30443 Prakash Kumar

Sahoo

1966081145

29241

10 30397 Deepak Kumar

Sahoo

1966067078

29241

11 29908 Bijaya Kumar

Pradhan

1966030809

12 29383 Satya Ranjan

Moharana

0766027095

13 29538 Debadutta

Moharana

0766028016

14 29532 Laxmikanta Kumar 1966080313

15 29433 Benudhar Behera 0766027141

16 29537 Chandan Dalai 0766028800

17 29694 KeeluGaneswara

Rao

1066005901

18 29708 Sandhyarani

Mohanty

0766040781

19 29771 Dhiren Jena 0466011334

// 27 //

Page 27 of 44

20 29893 Biswa Ranjan Naik 0766027389

21 30107 Srikant Sarango 1066003982

22 30022 Kumari Arati

Pradhan

1966088157

23 30016 Kalandi Khatua 0766028021

24 29904 Gujju Tarakeswara

Rao

1066004530

25 30015 Santosh Kumar

Raut

1966067335

26 30656 Ardhendhu Sekhar

Sahu

0466014966

27 30718 Chandan Pradhan 0466011617

28 31578 Kalpataru Jena 0766040956

29 31604 Sreeya Swain 1066005827

30 31620 Prabodh Kumar

Sahoo

0766026655

31 31699 Kalandi Parida 0766041912

32 30771 Madan Mohan

Pradhan

0766028129

33 30918 Ranjan Kumar

Swain

0766028864

34 31336 Manoj Kumar Das 1966063699

35 31775 Sarbeswar Majhi

5. That, the second category of cases involves the candidates

whose answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank

in the present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records.

The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given

hereunder.

// 28 //

Page 28 of 44

// 29 //

Page 29 of 44

// 30 //

Page 30 of 44

6. That, the third category of cases involves the candidates whose

answer papers are not matched, they have secured high rank in the

present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They

have not appeared the recruitment test for the post of Junior

Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under Combined

Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this Commission. The

list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given hereunder.

// 31 //

Page 31 of 44

7. That, the fourth category of cases involves the candidates whose

answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the present

Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They have not

secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment test

for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under

Combined Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this

Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given

hereunder.

// 32 //

Page 32 of 44

8. That, the fifth category of cases involves the candidates whose

answer papers are matched, they have secured high rank in the present

Recruitment Test and have good academic records. They have not

secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment test

for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer under

Combined Recruitment Examination- 2023 conducted by this

Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given

hereunder.

// 33 //

Page 33 of 44

9. That, the sixth category of cases involves the candidates whose

answer papers are not matched, they have secured high rank in the

present Recruitment Test and have poor academic records. They have

// 34 //

Page 34 of 44

not secured the minimum qualifying marks required in the recruitment

test for the post of Junior Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer

under Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 conducted by this

Commission. The list of the Writ Petitions and the petitioners are given

hereunder.

10. Thus, there are 06 category of Writ Petitions involving 233 Writ

Petitions covering 192 number of petitioners posted for hearing on

17.11.2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.

11. That, the Commission have now allowed the 337 number of

candidates (who were previously debarred from taking the physical

test) to appear in the Physical Test required for the post of Livestock

Inspector, Forester & Forest Guard under Combined Recruitment

Examination-2023. During the Physical Test, 19 number of

candidates could not be qualified in the test, one died. Also, 03 other

candidates were below the cut-off mark, So, 337-23-314 number of

posts have been kept reserved for the petitioners pursuant to the

orders of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in different Writ Petitions.”

4.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be

found with the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 and Petitioners are not

eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment even though all

of them have qualified the written test as well as the physical test in

the meantime. It is further contended that all the 314 candidates

including that of the Petitioners be directed to take the test, in terms of

// 35 //

Page 35 of 44

order dt.10.10.2025 and subject to their qualifying the test, they will

be provided with appointment.

5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate,

learned Sr. Counsels appearing for the Petitioners made further

submission contending inter alia that a candidate having poor

academic record, if any, cannot be taken for granted that he cannot

secure good mark in the recruitment test. Hence poor academic record

is not a ground to disqualify any candidate, on the mere assumption

that because of such poor academic record, the candidate cannot

perform well in any recruitment examination.

5.1. It is also contended that since out of the 314 candidates, 35

candidates are having poor academic records and answer papers being

matched and 28 candidates with similar record, having found

ineligible to get the benefit on the ground that they have not secured

the minimum qualifying mark in the recruitment for the post of Junior

Assistant and Panchayat Executive Officer Combined Recruitment

Examination-2023 conducted by the Commission, on the basis of such

mere finding, result of all 314 candidates cannot be withheld.

5.2. It is also contended that similarly situated candidates having poor

academic record and having secured good percentile of mark and

// 36 //

Page 36 of 44

placed in the merit list have got the benefit of appointment by the

Commission. To be specific, it is contended that candidates bearing

Roll Nos.1066004241, 0466006318, 1966085558, 1966080780,

1966086920, 1066005179, 0466004718, 1966041714, 2566004064,

0466013552, 0466013098 & 1966005793, though do not have good

academic record, but they have secured 100 percentile marks and have

got the benefit of appointment. Not only that candidates with poor

academic record have also got the benefit of appointment bearing

various Roll Numbers.

5.3. It is contended that since similarly situated candidates having

poor academic record and with 100 percentile marks have got the

benefit of appointment, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the

benefit of appointment subject to their qualifying the tests to be

conducted vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025 is not sustainable

in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that all these

Petitioners took the Combined Recruitment Examination-2023 so

issued by the Commission vide Advertisement No. II-

47/2023/762/OSSSC dt.20.10.2023. In the said advertisement, the

Commission advertised to fill up 719 posts for Livestock Inspector,

// 37 //

Page 37 of 44

316 posts for Forester and 1677 posts for Forest Guard, in total 2712

posts. In the written examination, result of which was published by the

Commission on 03.09.2024, 8496 candidates qualified the written

examination, which includes the present Petitioners.

6.1. However, basing on the complaints made by some unsuccessful

candidates and the general public and pursuant to the decision taken

by the Commission in its proceeding dtd.08.10.2024 under Annexure-

7 and finding of the Committee in its report dtd.08.02.2025 under

Annexure-9, 337 candidates, which includes the Petitioners, were not

allowed to take physical test in terms of the advertisement. After

debarring all those 337 candidates to take the physical test, they were

issued with a common show-cause by the Commission on 19.02.2025

in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 18 of the 2012 Rules.

Such a show-cause was issued by the Commission on the ground that

the Petitioners have adopted unfair means in the written examination.

6.2. Challenging such common show-cause issued by the Commission

on 19.02.2025, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court in

W.P.(C) No. 8077 of 2025 & batch. This Court vide order

dtd.03.09.2025, while disposing those batch of writ petitions,

permitted the Petitioners therein to file their reply to the show-cause

and for its consideration by the Commission. Vide the said order this

// 38 //

Page 38 of 44

Court also directed the Commission to allow all such 337 candidates

to participate in the physical test.

6.3. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court though all those 337

candidates were allowed to take the physical test, but as found from

the instruction provided by the Commission, 314 candidates have

qualified the physical test. But vide the impugned order

dtd.10.10.2025, the Commission has decided not to publish the result

of all those 314 candidates, which includes the present Petitioners and

instead has directed them to take another test of similar standard and

to secure the minimum qualifying mark for the purpose of retaining

their position in the provisional merit list.

6.4. This Court taking into account the report of the Committee

chaired by the Chief Secretary in its minutes of the meeting

dtd.08.10.2024 under Annexure-7, found that after publication of the

written examination result on 03.09.2024, complaints were received

by the Commission from different quarters, which includes the

disqualified candidates that there are large scale irregularities in the

conduct of the examination by the Commission.

6.5. However, the said Committee in its proceeding dtd.08.10.2024

found that with regard to the alleged irregularities in the conduct of

// 39 //

Page 39 of 44

the examination, no report has been received by the Commission from

any observer/district administration, save and except a solitary

incident, where the examination was only conducted by one hour late

on 30.09.2024.

6.6. It is also found that pursuant to the notification issued by the G.A.

& P.G. Department on 25.10.2024 under Annexure-8, the Committee

after going through the materials placed before it by the Commission

and the complaints made by the Complainants, came to a finding that

there are no large-scale irregularities in conducting the examination

vide its report dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9. However, basing on

the finding of the Committee, result of 337 candidates was not

published and instead they were issued with the show-cause on

19.02.2025.

6.7. When various writ petitions were filed challenging the said show-

cause, this Court while disposing all those writ petitions vide a

common order passed on 03.09.2025, allowed the Petitioners therein

to file their respective replies and this Court further directed to the

Commission to take a decision on the issue involved in the show-

cause. This Court also directed the Commission to allow all those

Petitioners to take the physical test.

// 40 //

Page 40 of 44

6.8. As found from the record, after allowing all those 337 candidates

to take the physical test, 314 candidates have qualified in the physical

test. But their claim to get the benefit of appointment was rejected

vide the impugned order dtd.10.10.2025, but with a rider that, they

should take another test of similar nature to justify their eligibility and

to retain their position in the provisional merit list.

6.9. It is also found from the record that out of those 314 candidates,

who have been asked to take a fresh test, there are 35 candidates, who

have secured high rank in the recruitment, even though they have poor

academic records and whose answer sheets are matched. There are 78

candidates whose answer sheets though have matched, but they are

having good academic record and have secured high rank in the

recruitment test. Similarly, there are 5 candidates, whose answer

sheets though do not match, but they have secured high rank on the

face of poor academic record. There are 28 candidates who have

secured high rank in the recruitment test with having poor academic

record and answer sheets being matched and they have also not

secured the minimum qualifying mark in the earlier recruitment held

by the self-same Commission. There are 41 candidates who have also

secured high rank, but with good academic record and answer sheets

being matched, but have not qualified in the earlier recruitment test.

// 41 //

Page 41 of 44

There are 5 candidates who have secured high rank with having poor

academic record, but with answer sheets being not matched.

6.10. This Court after going through the records, found that after

publication of the result of the written examination on 03.09.2024,

337 candidates with high percentile mark in the written examination,

which include the Petitioners were not allowed to take the physical

test, basing on the finding of the proceeding dt.08.10.2024 and

subsequently were issued with the show-cause on 19.02.2025, basing

on the report of the Committee dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9.

It is also the view of this Court that show-cause dt.19.02.2025, so

issued in terms of the provision contained under Rule 18 of the 2012

Rules is not legal and justified as none of the stipulation contained

under Rule 18(1) to 18(xii) of the Rules is attracted.

6.11. This Court from the report dt.08.10.2024 under Annexure-7 and

report dt.08.02.2025 under Annexure-9, finds that none of the

Committees have found any serious illegality or irregularity with

regard to conduct of the written examination, so conducted by the

Commission for the period from 24.04.2024 to 07.05.2024. But on

mere assumption that 337 candidates having poor academic record,

have secured good mark in the written examination, suggested for

// 42 //

Page 42 of 44

holding of a further qualifying test for those 337 candidates. But as

found, out of those 337 candidates, 314 candidates have qualified the

physical test.

6.12. It is also found that similarly situated candidates having poor

academic record with high percentile mark in the written examination,

have got the benefit of selection as well as appointment. This Court

accordingly is of the view that, in the case of the Petitioners, the

Commission cannot take a different stand even though in some of the

cases, answer sheets of those candidates matched with each other.

6.13. It is also the view of this Court that poor academic record cannot

be taken as a ground for not securing good mark in a recruitment test.

Since the Commission has not received any adverse report from any

of the 94 centres, regarding any illegality or irregularity with regard to

the conduct of the written examination, on mere assumption that

Petitioners having poor academic record, since have secured high rank

in the recruitment test, cannot be taken as a ground to make them

ineligible and to direct them to appear a further test in order to make

them eligible to keep their position in the select list, in view of the

decision in the case of Manohar Lal and Raja Ram as cited (supra).

// 43 //

Page 43 of 44

6.14. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the undisputed fact that

nothing adverse has been found against any of the Petitioners while

taking the written test, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned

show-cause dt.19.02.2025 and so also order dtd.10.10.2025, so passed

in all these cases and while quashing the show-cause dt.19.02.2025

and order dt.10.10.2025 in each of the writ petition, this Court directs

the Commission to recommend the Petitioners against the post in

question, taking into account the choice given by them within a period

of 3 (three) weeks hence. On such recommendation of the Petitioners,

respective Departments of the Govt. shall take effective steps, to

provide appointment to the Petitioners without any further delay.

6.15. However, it is observed that Petitioners will not claim any

seniority over the appointees already issued with the orders of

appointment and have joined in the posts in various Departments of

the Government. Such appointments be treated as prospective in

nature and the same be reflected in the order of appointment.

Petitioners be permitted to join pursuant to such order of appointment

by furnishing an undertaking to the effect that they will not claim any

seniority or any claim of any nature vis-à-vis the candidates who have

already joined in their posts.

// 44 //

Page 44 of 44

7. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Dated the 16

th

April, 2026/Sneha