Orissa High Court
Bighneswar Barik & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35206 of 2025
Bighneswar Barik & Anr. .... Petitioners
Mr. A. Das, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. A.K. Pal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 28.01.2026
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Affidavit filed in Court be kept in record.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully rayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased issue Rule NISSI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show ause as to why :-
1. The order no. 8421 dtd 03.11.2025 issued by OP. No. 2 under annexure-16 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal;
2. The O.P. No.2 shall not be directed to conduct the recruitment as per modalities fixed on 08.09.2025 which has been prepared in compliance to Order dtd. 18.07.2025 passed in WPC(OAC) No.1322 of 2016 as well as Order dtd. 04.09.2025 passed in CONTC No. 1626 of 2024 within a stipulated period;
// 2 // If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute;
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray."
4. It is contended that advertisement issued for recruitment to various post by Opposite Party No.2 on 22.10.2012 was the subject matter of dispute in O.A. No.1322(C) of 2016. The said Original Application after being transferred to this Court was disposed of finally vide order dtd.18.07.2023 under Annexure-11 with the following direction so contained in Para-6:-
"6. Accordingly, while disposing the Writ Petition as well as all the pending Interim Applications, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to proceed with the recruitment in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 by making necessary modification and complete the recruitment process within a period of 6 (six) from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment."
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that on being communicated with the order so passed by this Court under Annexure-11, Opposite Party No.2 issued a notice on 28.07.2023 under Annexure-12. In the said notice, it was clearly indicated that the recruitment will be held in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 and the notice issued under Annexure-12.
Page 2 of 10// 3 // 4.2. It is contended that after issuance of such a notice under Annexure-12 on 28.07.2023 to proceed with the recruitment in terms of the advertisement dtd.22.10.2012, when no action was taken, CONTC No.1626 of 2024 was filed, seeking compliance of order dtd.18.07.2023. In the said Contempt Petition, Opposite Party No.2 on his Personal appearance basing on the letter issued on 02.09.2025 by Opposite Party No.1, fairly contended that recruitment will be conducted strictly in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 and the exercise will be completed by the end of 2025.
4.3. It is contended that after disposal of the Contempt Petition vide order dtd.04.09.2025, Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter dtd.08.09.2025, prescribed the modalities to be followed for recruitment of 54 (Group-C) Industrial Post as per advertisement dtd.22.10.2012, in terms of the decision taken by the Appointment Committee in its proceeding dtd.31.03.2021, so approved by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 in its letter dtd.27.08.2021.
4.4. It is contended that, on the face of the modality approved by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.31.03.2021 with approval of the Government vide letter dtd.27.08.2021, so issued on 08.09.2025, the impugned letter was issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Page 3 of 10 // 4 // Annexure-16 on 03.11.2025, prescribing different modalities to conduct the recruitment in question.
4.5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since the modality prescribed by the Appointment Committee in its proceeding dtd.31.03.2021 was duly notified vide letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15, with due approval of the Govt.-Opposite Party No.1, there was no necessity to prescribe different modality to conduct the recruitment vide the impugned letter dtd.03.11.2025 under Annexure-16.
4.6. It is accordingly contended that modality prescribed in the impugned communication dtd.03.11.2025 under Annexure-16 of Opposite Party No.2, is required to be interfered with by this Court.
5. Considering the stand taken in the Writ Petition, this Court vide order dtd.12.12.2025 directed the learned Addl. Government Advocate to obtain instruction in the matter. While directing so, this Court passed an interim order by staying the operation of the impugned communication dtd.03.11.2025, so issued under Annexure-16.
6. Basing on the order passed by this Court, learned Addl. Government Advocate produced the instruction so provided by Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter Page 4 of 10 // 5 // dtd.29.12.2025. Placing reliance on the said instruction, learned AGA contended that, subsequent to issuance of the letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15, in the meeting held on 14.10.2025, a fresh set of modality was approved by the Appointment Committee to complete the recruitment in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 under Annexure-1.
6.1. Basing on such modality approved by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.14.10.2025, the communication under Annexure-16 was issued by Opposite Party No.2 on 03.11.2025.
6.2. It is contended that since the modality of the test so approved by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.14.10.2025 has been acted upon with issuance of the letter dtd.03.11.2025 under Annexure-16, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.2 be permitted to proceed with the recruitment in terms of Annexure-16 communication dtd.03.11.2025.
7. To the submission of the learned State counsel, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after disposal of the Writ Petition by this Court vide order dtd.18.07.2023 under Annexure-11 and further order passed in the Contempt on 04.09.2025 under Annexure-14, the modality adopted by the Appointment Committee to conduct the recruitment in its Page 5 of 10 // 6 // proceeding dtd.31.03.2021, was duly notified by Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15 and the said modality was also approved by the Government in its letter dtd.27.08.2021 vide Annexure-18.
7.1. It is accordingly contended that after issuance of the notice dtd.08.09.2025, there was no necessity to prescribe a different modality, basing on the proceeding of the Committee dtd.14.10.2025.
7.2. It is also vehemently contended that modality framed by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.14.10.2025, is not legal and justified, as the said decision has been taken by an incompetent Committee, which is not in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule-9(A) of the Orissa Government Press Industrial Employees Classification, Requirement, Promotion, Condition of Service & Appeal Rules, 1978. Rule-9(A) of the Rules reads as follows:-
"9(A) Appointment and Promotion Committee The Director who is the appointing authority with respect to all non-gazetted industrial posts will make appointment to such posts by way of direct recruitment, internal promotion and deputation from outside. He will be aided and guided by a Committee of officers comprising the following, namely:-
Director Chairman
All Unit Officers Members
Labour Welfare Officer Members
Page 6 of 10
// 7 //
Establishment Officer Member-Secretary."
7.3. It is contended that all such decision by the Appointment Committee, is required to be taken by a team of Members containing not less than 11 members. However the proceeding dtd.14.10.2025 has only been attended by four members, including the Principal Secretary of the Department. It is however contended that the decision taken by the Committee in its earlier meeting dtd.31.03.2021 was taken by a duly constituted Committee in terms of Rule-9(A) of the Rules.
7.4. It is accordingly contended that since the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dtd. 16.10.2025 is not in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 9(A) of the Rules, the decision taken by such Committee could not have been acted upon, with issuance of the impugned communication dtd.03.11.2025 under Annexure-16.
7.5. Making all the submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Opposite Party No.2 be directed to complete the recruitment process in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 under Annexure-1, notice dtd.28.07.2023 issued under Annexure-12 and the modality accepted by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.31.03.2021 so notified vide letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15, Page 7 of 10 // 8 // with qushing of the impugned letter dtd.03.11.2025, so issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-16.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the recruitment process initiated by Opposite Party No.2 way back on 22.10.2012 under Annexure-1, was the subject matter of challenge in WPC(OAC) No.1322 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of finally vide the order dtd.18.07.2023 under Annexure-11, by permitting the Opposite Party No.2 to proceed with the recruitment in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012, with necessary modification and to complete the process within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
8.1. After such disposal of the matter vide notice dtd.28.07.2023 under Annexure-12, Opposite Party No.2 indicated that the recruitment is to be conducted in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012. On the face of the order passed by this Court, when the recruitment process so issued vide advertisement dtd.22.10.2012 was not completed, this Court passed the following order on 04.09.2025 in CONTC No.1624 of 2024:-
"1. This matter in talken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Pursuant to order dated 26.08.2025, Mr. Diptesh Patnaik, Opp. Party/Contemnor appeared in person and Page 8 of 10 // 9 // produced copy of the letter issued by the Department vide letter dated 02.09.2025. The same be kept in record.
4. Basing on the letter issued by the Department, Opp. Party/Contemnor contended that he has now been permitted by the department to proceed with the selection process in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 and will complete the entire exercise by the end of this year.
5. Considering the instruction and the submission made by the Opp. Party/Contemnor in Court, list this matter in the 1st week of January, 2026.
Personal appearance of the Opp. Party/Contemnor is dispensed with."
8.2. After disposal of the Contempt Petition, Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15 issued the modality to be followed for completing the recruitment process so approved by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.31.03.2021, and approved by the Government vide letter dtd.27.08.2021. After issuance of the communication dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15, the impugned communication was issued on 03.11.2025, basing on the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.14.10.2025 so produced by the learned AGA.
8.3. This Court after going through the proceeding of the meeting dtd.14.10.2025, finds that the said meeting has been held contrary to the provisions contained under Rule-9(A) of the 1978 Rules. Since the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.14.10.2025 is not in accordance with Rule-9(A) of the Rules and contrary to Page 9 of 10 // 10 // the earlier decision so issued on 08.09.2025, as per the considered view of this Court, such decision taken by the Committee could not have been acted upon, with issuance of the impugned letter dtd.03.11.2025 under Annexure-16.
8.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned communication dtd.03.11.2025 so issued under Annexure-16 basing on the proceeding of the meeting dtd.14.10.2025, directs Opposite Party No.2 to proceed with the recruitment in terms of the advertisement issued on 22.10.2012 and the modality accepted and published vide letter dtd.08.09.2025 under Annexure-15. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to complete the recruitment process without any further delay, as the recruitment is of the year 2012 and more than 13 years have passed in the meantime.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 15:43:29 Page 10 of 10