Kiran Raj

The Orissa High Court has set aside the judgment of a Single Judge that had quashed the written examination for recruitment to the post of Drugs Inspector (Group-B) under the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC). The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sashikanta Mishra, held that the writ petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the recruitment process after participating in the examination without raising objections at the appropriate stage. The court recorded: “We find that the petitioner lacked locus standi to seek the relief claimed in the writ petition.”

The court noted that the writ petitioner had taken part in the examination without challenging the advertisement or raising objections regarding the examination pattern when invited to do so by the OPSC. The judgment states: “Once it is held that the writ petitioner had not availed the opportunity specifically provided to raise objection, he would be estopped to do so at a subsequent time and that too, by filing a writ application before this Court.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Suit by Unregistered Law Firm Against Client

The Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) issued an advertisement (No. 8 of 2022-23) for the recruitment of 47 posts of Drugs Inspector under the Health and Family Welfare Department. The writ petitioner, Satyabrata Samantasinghar, applied for the post and appeared in the written examination held on March 19, 2023.

Upon failing to qualify, he approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 12065 of 2023, contending that OPSC had violated Rule 6(4)(c) of the Odisha Drugs Control Service (Drugs Control Administration) (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020, as well as Clause 6(c) of the advertisement. The petitioner submitted that the OPSC was required to prepare a test booklet containing 200 questions (200 marks) with equal weightage of 25 marks for each of the 8 subjects in the syllabus. He argued that the test booklet did not maintain this subject-wise parity.

The petitioner sought the cancellation of the examination held on March 19, 2023, and requested the court to direct the OPSC to conduct a fresh examination in accordance with Rule 6(4)(b) and (c) of the 2020 Rules.

In response, OPSC stated that the subjects listed in the syllabus were interrelated and interdisciplinary in nature, and no subject-wise marking distribution was specified in the advertisement. It contended that question setters were instructed to provide 25 questions from each subject, and that overlapping between subjects was not uncommon. OPSC also stated that it had constituted a committee of experts to review the matter, which concluded that strict subject-wise segregation was unnecessary and that the questions had been distributed in a balanced manner across the syllabus.

Additionally, OPSC submitted that candidates were given the opportunity to raise objections to any erroneous questions or answer options through a notice dated August 13, 2021, inviting responses within three days of the examination. No objection was received from the writ petitioner at that time.

The Division Bench examined whether the writ petitioner had the standing to challenge the examination process after participating in it. The judgment states: “The petitioner having taken a calculated chance and realising that the result of the examination would not be palatable to him, cannot turn around to question that the questions set in the Test Booklet were not in conformity with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.”

The court observed that the petitioner did not challenge the advertisement before participating in the examination, nor did he raise any objection regarding the test booklet at the stage when OPSC had invited objections. The judgment states: “Any direction to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners against the entire vacancy of primary school teachers would unsettle settled matter and shall result into chain reaction, affecting the appointment of a large number of persons.”

The court also recorded that OPSC had provided a specific opportunity for candidates to submit objections after the examination but before the evaluation process, stating: “A specific opportunity was provided by OPSC in the form of the aforementioned notice inviting objections from the candidates for being placed before the subject experts/question setters for validation and preparation of the answer keys before evaluation.”

The judgment further states: “It is not disputed that the petitioner never availed this opportunity and instead thought it proper to approach this Court by filing the writ application in question.”

The court cited past Supreme Court judgments on the doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel, referring to Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa and State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Dangi, to hold that a candidate who participates in an examination without raising timely objections cannot later challenge the process.

Also Read: Division Bench of Calcutta High Court Rebukes NIA Court for ‘Non-Application of Mind’, Sets Aside Bail Cancellation as ‘Unjustified and Procedurally Flawed’

The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the appeals filed by OPSC and the successful candidates. The judgment states: “In view of the foregoing analysis, we find sufficient force in the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for all the appellants to question the correctness of the impugned judgment and thus hold that the same warrants interference.”

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating: “The impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ application filed by the respondent-petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12065 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellants (OPSC and Successful Candidates):

• Arnab Behera, Adyasha Kar & Ritesh Patnaik (For OPSC)

• Senior Advocate B. Routray, with S. Routray, S. Sekhar, A.K. Das, J. Biswal & M. Panda (For Appellants in W.A. Nos. 2305 & 2386 of 2024)

• Senior Advocate P.K. Rath, with Saibrata Rath, A. Behera, S.K. Behera, S. Das, P.K. Basantia, A. Rout, A. Mohanty & T.N. Rout (For Appellants in W.A. No. 2371 of 2024)

For Respondent (Writ Petitioner):

• Prasanta Kumar Mishra, K.L. Kar & S. Mishra

Case Title: Odisha Public Service Commission v. Satyabrata Samantasinghar & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:ORI-HC:1404
Case Number: W.A. No. 2260 of 2024, W.A. No. 2305 of 2024, W.A. No. 2371 of 2024 & W.A. No. 2386 of 2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha  and Justice Sashikanta Mishra

[Read/Download order]