Vigilance Court Rejects Bail for Four in Orissa HC ASO Exam Leak Case
A vigilance court in Cuttack has firmly rejected the bail applications of four individuals arrested in connection with the alleged leak of model answers and use of unfair means in the assistant section officer (ASO) examination-2024 conducted by the Orissa High Court. The court's decision underscores the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation into this high-profile recruitment scandal.
Background of the Case and Examination Cancellation
The Orissa High Court had initially scheduled the main written examination for July 13, 2025, as part of a recruitment drive to fill 147 ASO vacancies. However, following widespread allegations of malpractice and irregularities, the High Court took the decisive step of cancelling that examination. A fresh written test was subsequently conducted on December 7 last year, with the results being officially declared on February 2 of this year. The recruitment process is currently ongoing to ensure transparency and fairness.
Arrests and Allegations of Large-Scale Irregularities
The accused individuals—identified as Himansu Sekhar Dash, Sridhara Mantri, Nirmalaya Kumar Das, and Gangadhara Jena—were arrested on January 31 along with two others. This action came after a thorough investigation unearthed alleged large-scale irregularities in the July 2025 examination. The case was formally registered at the Lalbag police station in Cuttack based on a complaint highlighting discrepancies noticed during the scrutiny of the examination, which had been conducted through an outsourcing agency.
The accused face multiple charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and specific sections of the Odisha Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, including sections 11(1), 11(2), and 12. Among those arrested are representatives of the outsourcing agency and alleged middlemen, indicating a coordinated effort to compromise the examination's integrity.
Court Proceedings and Bail Rejection
The bail applications for the four accused were moved after the SDJM (Sadar) court had previously rejected their pleas on the same day. In opposing the bail requests, the prosecution argued vigorously that the investigation is at a critical juncture, and releasing the accused at this stage could severely hamper the probe and potentially allow for evidence tampering.
On Tuesday, special judge (vigilance) Dilip Kumar Sahoo delivered the ruling, rejecting the bail applications. The judge observed that other accused individuals are still absconding, and the investigation is merely at a nascent stage, requiring further meticulous work. The court expressed strong concerns that there is a significant possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding if granted bail, given the gravity of the alleged offenses.
In four separate orders, Judge Sahoo emphasized, "Considering the larger interest of society and the future of innocent aspirants, I am not inclined to release the accused on bail." This statement highlights the court's commitment to upholding justice and protecting the interests of genuine candidates who rely on fair examination processes.
Evidence and Technical Investigation Findings
According to detailed case records, the examination of answer scripts revealed alarming patterns, including verbatim reproduction of model answers and unusually high scores secured by certain candidates. These findings raised immediate red flags and prompted a deeper investigation.
Technical investigations played a crucial role in this case, with analysis of call detail records allegedly establishing suspicious links between agency officials, intermediaries, and candidates. Investigators have stated that prima facie evidence points to the involvement of more persons, suggesting that the network of malpractice may be broader than initially suspected. This ongoing probe aims to uncover the full extent of the irregularities and hold all responsible parties accountable.
The vigilance court's decision to deny bail reinforces the judicial system's stance against examination fraud, ensuring that such serious allegations are thoroughly investigated without interference. As the recruitment drive continues, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of integrity in public examinations and the legal consequences for those who attempt to undermine it.
