Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1990 of 2024 1) Shiv Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioners 2) Sambit Kumar Nayak Represented By Adv. - Sourav Das -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Opsc, Represented By Its Secretary Represented By Adv. – Mr. A.Sethy, A.S.C. Mr. A.Behera, Standing Counsel for O.P.-2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 03.01.2025 I.A. No.13160 of 2024 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This I.A. has been filed seeking modification of order dated 26.02.2024 at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2, Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC). 3. Mr. A.Behera, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 at the outset submitted that order dated 26.02.2024 was passed at the stage of admission on concession given by the learned counsel for the OPSC to the extent that the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to file their representation before Page 2 of 4. the Opposite Party No.2 which shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.2 in accordance with law. It was also agreed that if required, the Opposite Party No.2 shall constitute an Expert body for the examination of the grievance raised by some of the candidates with regard to answer key prepared by the subject expert engaged by the OPSC. Subject to the report submitted by such expert committee, the OPSC shall do the needful in the matter as per law under intimation to the petitioners. While deposing of the writ application this Court further observed that in the event the Opposite Party No.2 is convinced with regard to the grievance of the petitioners, another notice be published inviting objection from the candidates and such objection be placed before the Expert Committee for evaluation, which would not cause any prejudice to any of the candidates who had not been selected and had not approached this Court in the meantime. The only grievance of the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 is the subsequent observation by this Court with regard to the publication of notice inviting objection from the candidates who have neither approached this Court nor the OPSC, raising any grievance with regard to any error in the answer key. He further contended that in the event such a public notice is given, the same would open the Pandora’s box and the entire process would be rendered inconclusive. On such ground, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the order dated 26.02.2024 be suitably modified to the extent that the observation with regard to the issuance of public notice in Para-7 of the order be Page 3 of 4. deleted. 4. The aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 was seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset raised objection with regard to maintainability of the present I.A. He further submitted that in the event the petitioners are aggrieved by any portion of the order dated 26.02.2024, then the Opposite Party No.2 should have preferred a review petition before this Court seeking the variation/modification of the order. However, when a question was posed by this Court with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioners in the event the prayer in the present I.A. is allowed, learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to convince the Court with regard to the prejudice that is likely to be caused. 5. On a careful examination of the records as well as the order passed on 26.02.2024. This Court observes that the same was passed at the stage of admission without providing an opportunity to the Opposite Party No.2 to put forth their case by filing a counter affidavit. Order dated 26.02.2024 was passed on concession of the counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 to a limited extent. Since the parties are at logger’s head and the order dated 26.02.2024 is not acceptable to them, this Court is of the view that the matter requires adjudication on merit after providing opportunity to the Opposite Parties to file their counter affidavit. In such view of the matter, the order dated 26.02.2024 is hereby recalled. Page 4 of 4. 6. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.1990 of 2024 7. On the prayer of learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 he is granted two weeks’ time to file their counter affidavit after serving a copy thereof learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. 9. Registry is directed to place the matter before the appropriate assigned bench for further hearing of the matter. ( A.K Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi