Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No. 1049 of 2019 Rudranarayan Tripathy ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) Mr. S. Swain, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos.3 to 14,16,17,18, 21) Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 19) Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 20) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 16 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the above facts stated in para-6 above the applicants pray for the following relief(s): (i) Admit the O.A., Issue notice to the respondents and after hearing the parties quashed the Final Select list under Annexure-6 and as well as the Corrigendum Notice under Annexure-5 declaring the same as illegal. (ii) And pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Page 2 of 3. 4. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was otherwise eligible, but when his name was not reflected in the final select list so issued under Annexure-6 and the corrigendum issued under Annexure-5, the present writ petition was filed. 5. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Commission placing reliance on the stand taken in Para 5 of the counter affidavit contended that since Petitioner has not secured the required cut-off mark in the category in question, his name was not included in the final merit list issued under Annexure-6. Stand taken in Para 5 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “5. In reply to the averments made at Para-6.7 to 6.10 of the Writ Application, it is humbly submitted here that the petitioner has sought for his mark/score secured in the examination vide his RTI application in form-A which was denied by the PIO citing therein the reason since there was a possibility of drawal of supplementary select list (within one year of publication of the select list) in case there is non-joining vacancy reported by any Appointing Authority as per the Provision under Rule-16(3) of the OSSC Rules, 1993 and subsequent amendments. Since there was a chance of publication of another select list to sponsor more candidates, if any non-joining vacancy is reported by the HOD offices, this opposite party didn't disclose the confidentiality of the merit list within one year of publication of the first select list. Hence, the RTI applicant would have obtained his marks secured in the examination later on after one year of the publication of the select list. The Commission as per the above rule and based on the non-joining report received from the Directorate of Fisheries, Odisha, Cuttack published the supplementary select list for another three candidates who were below the candidates selected earlier in the first select list out of the common merit list vide Notification No. 3435/OSSC, dated 23.10.2019. Copy of the said notification is annexed as Annexure-A/2 to this counter affidavit for kind appraisal of Hon'ble Court. Moreover, it is humbly submitted here that though the petitioner is having required eligibility qualification for the post, he has secured less marks than the last candidate selected in his category. Hence, he could not get selected due to his less score in the examination. The details of the marks Page 3 of 3. secured by the petitioner in different stages of the recruitment examination is given in the table below for better appreciation of the Hon'ble Court. Type of Exam Marks secured Language Test (OMR Marks) 16 Marks Shorthand Test (English Marks) 73.5 marks Shorthand Test (Odia marks) 65 Marks Total Marks Secured 154.5 Marks But the last candidate selected under his category (UR-Male) in the final select list published on dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure- 6 of the Writ Application) has secured 176 marks and the last Candidate selected under UR-Male category in the supplementary select list published vide Notification No.3435/OSSC, dated 23.10.2019 has secured 171 marks in total.” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made and the stand taken in Para 5 of the counter affidavit, since it is not disputed that the Petitioner has not secured the cut-off mark in the category in question, no relief can be extended as prayed for. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha