Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9923 of 2026 Tararani Meher ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prakash Kumar Rout -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. 3 S.Behera, A.G.A. S.N.Pattnaik, Counsel for the OSSC-O.P. No.3 CORAM: THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 31.03.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties and Mr.S.N.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the OSSC-Opposite Party No.3. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: <Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the opposite parties to revise/correct the answer Page 2 of 4. key for the Question Nos. 30 and 135 of Question Booklet Code A and accordingly award additional 2.50 marks to the petitioner for the said two questions by which the petitioner's mark will be 103.25 (100.75 +2.50), which will be coming within the cutoff mark meant for SEBC (Women) candidates and accordingly consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection and appointment in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) pursuant to the advertisement made on 22.10.2024 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, since the petitioner is coming within the cutoff mark of 103.25 as mentioned under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/order or direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.= 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that pursuant to an advertisement by the Opposite Party No.3 dated 02.12.2024 for recruitment to the post of TGT (Arts), the petitioner offered his candidature for selection to the aforesaid post. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner appeared in the recruitment written test which was held on 23.11.2025. The final result of the written examination was published on the next day, i.e., on 26.11.2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that after publication of the model answer, the Petitioner verified the answer given by him and upon such verification, the Petitioner found that he has not been awarded any mark in respect of two questions. Therefore, the Petitioner expects that in the event he will be awarded marks in respect of such questions for which no marks has been awarded, the total marks of the Petitioner would go up and the same would eventually alter the final selection list. Being aggrieved by such Page 3 of 4. illegal conduct of Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to re-evaluate the answer script of the Petitioner. 5. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.3, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on perusal of the documents annexed to the writ application, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the competent authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.3 by filing a representation dated 07.03.2026 at Annexure-9 to the writ application. He further submitted that in the event no final decision has been taken on such representation, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner as per law and the applicable rules within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, further taking note of the limited nature of the grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-9, if the same is still pending, within a period of eight weeks and the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision should be communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further directed that till a decision is taken on the representation of the Petitioner, one post in the stream of TGT (Arts) shall not be filled up, if not filled up in the meantime, till Page 4 of 4. disposal of the representation or for a period of two months. 7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer