Affirming the principle of fair hearing under Article 226 and directing administrative authorities to decide objections within four weeks, this order serves as persuasive guidance for recruitment processes in public services.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/22565/2025 of MOHAMMED MUQTAR Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010569982025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive Authority |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-consideration of objections to a tentative gradation list and imminent publication of the final list violates principles of natural justice and warrants writ relief. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an administrative authority cannot finalize gradation lists without considering objections filed within the prescribed period, as this would violate the principle of audi alteram partem. When such objections remain undecided, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, may issue a mandamus directing the authority to decide them in accordance with law within a specified timeframe. This ensures that public recruitment processes adhere to natural justice. The judgment reaffirms the established principle rather than creating new law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed an objection to the tentative gradation list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed) published on 11.02.2025, but the authorities proceeded towards publishing the final list without deciding it, leading to this writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Opposite Party No. 4 (Odisha Police Department) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Administrative authorities must decide objections to tentative gradation lists before publishing final lists to comply with natural justice.
- High Courts can invoke Article 226 to direct administrative bodies to dispose of pending objections within a fixed timeframe.
- This order serves as persuasive authority for similar challenges in public service recruitments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioner challenged failure to consider his objection (Annexure-5) to the tentative gradation list published on 11.02.2025.
- The Additional Government Advocate conceded that objections filed within the stipulated period warranted court intervention.
- Applying the principle of audi alteram partem, the Court recognised that the objection must be decided before finalizing the list.
- Exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court directed Opposite Party No. 4 to decide the objection within four weeks and communicate the result.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The objection filed to the tentative gradation list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed) dated 11.02.2025 was not considered before publishing the final list, violating the right to a fair hearing.
Opposite Parties:
- The Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the objection was filed within the stipulated time, the High Court could pass an appropriate order to ensure its disposal.
Factual Background
The petitioner submitted an objection to the tentative gradation list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed) published on 11.02.2025 (Annexure-5). Despite the objection being within the prescribed period, the authorities moved to finalize the list without deciding it. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to consider his objection before publication of the final list. The High Court directed Opposite Party No. 4 to decide the objection within four weeks.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions were elaborated in the judgment beyond invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.