Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha on 6 December, 2024
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
1. Devranjan Dang
Aged about 24 years
Son of Dwitiya Dang
At: Saraswatipur
P.O.: Khairmal
P.S.: Manamunda
District: Boudh
2. Aurobinda Pradhan
Aged about 26 years
Son of Chyaban Pradhan
At: Sindhupali, P.O.: Budido
P.S.: Reamal
District: Deogarh.
3. Tapan Kumar Behera
Aged about 25 years
Son of Sarat Kumar Behera
At: Aliha, P.O.: Singiri
P.S.: Aul, District: Kendrapada.
4. Jiban Jyoti Rout
Aged about 27 years
Son of Ramesh Chandra Rout
At: Kandabindha, P.O.: Kandabindha
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 1 of 83
P.S.: Kandabindha
District:Dhenkanal.
5. Laxmi Kanta Mohanta
Aged about 22 years
Son of Sukesh Kumar Mohanta
At: Kesharpir, P.O.: Kesharpur
P.S.: Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj.
6. Abhipsa Jena
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Bidhubhusan Jena
At: Kumbhiragadia, P.O.:Kumbhiragadia
P.S.: Jajpur Road, District: Jajpur.
7. Manaswini Nayak
Aged about 25 years
Daughter of Agasti Nayak
At: Guptinagar, P.O.: Kamakhyanagar
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.
8. Laxminarayan Rout
Aged about 23 years
Son of Bhimasen Rout
At: Godhan, P.O.: Bachharai
P.S.: Patkura
District: Kendrapada.
9. Aditya Kumar Panda
Aged about 23 years
Son of Sushanta Panda
At: Chhelia, P.O.: Chhelia
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 2 of 83
10. Biswa Ranjan Barik
Aged about 22 years
Son of Kunjabihari Barik
At: Bilipada, P.O.: Binayakpur
P.S.: Bilipada, District: Puri.
11. Subhakanta Baral
Aged about 21 years
Son of Madhaba Chandra Baral
At: Rahangagorada, P.O.: Khandasahi
District: Puri.
12. Sabyasachi Dehury
Aged about 28 years
Son of Rudracharan Dehury
At: Kaimati, P.O.: Kaimati
District: Dhenkanal.
13. Sashibhusan Das
Aged about 23 years
Son of Bharat Chandra Das
At: Nachhipuria, P.O.: Nachhipuria
District: Mayurbhanj.
14. Dileswar Mirdha
Aged about 24 years
Son of Dasaratha Mirdha
At: Patuabahal, P.O.: Dangarapada
P.S.: Dangarapada
District: Sambalpur.
15. Nilachal Sahoo
Aged about 28 years
Son of Tirthabasi Sahoo
At: Sarapali, P.O.: Gaudapada
P.S.: Gaudapada, District: Sambalpur.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 3 of 83
16. Sudeep Kumar Behera
Aged about 24 years
Son of Sudarshan Behera
At: Digariastia, P.O.: Kuliana
P.S.: Mayurbhanj
District: Mayurbhanj.
17. Jushman Pradhan
Aged about 26 years
Son of Khadu Pradhan
At: Hatibahal, P.O.:Badabahal
P.S.: Rairakhole
District: Sambalpur.
18. Upendra Mohanta
Aged about 25 years
Son of Dibakar Mohanta
At: Ambapunja, P.O.: Ambapunja
P.S.: Chandua
District: Mayurbhanj.
19. Surendra Mehera
Aged about 24 years
Son of Duryodhan Meher
At: Kendupali, P.O.: Kamalpur
P.S.: Birmaharajpur
District: Sonepur.
20. Bikash Swain
Aged about 24 years
Son of Panchanan Swain
At: Jogindrapur, P.O.: Sadanandapur
P.S.: Mamamunda, District: Boudh.
21. Barsharanee Samal
Aged about 23 years
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 4 of 83
Daughter of Bighneswar Samal
At: Magipur, P.O.: Jajpur
District: Jajpur.
22. Sushree Suman
Aged about 24 years
Son of Sushanta Kumar Parida
At: Jadumani Nagar, P.O.: Nayagarh
P.S.: Nayagarh, District: Nayagarh.
23. Ramamohan Das,
Aged about 27 years
Son of Kashyap Kumar Das
At: Rangas, P.O.: Chhatrapada
P.S.: Pritipur, District: Jajpur.
24. Arun Kumar Mohanta
Aged about 31 years
Son of Rabindra Mohanta
At: Kunjia, P.O./P.S.: Tato
District: Mayurbhanj.
25. Anubhab Mohanty
Aged about 24 years
Son of Gopal Chandra Mohanty
At: Soharia, P.O.: Soharia
P.S.: Bhogarai, District: Balasore.
26. Dipti Ranjan Pradhan
Aged about 24 years
Son of Padmanav Pradhan
At: Ambagadia Sahi, P.O.: Sadha
P.S.: Naha, District: Keonjhar.
27. Chittaranjan Nayak
Aged about 25 years
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 5 of 83
Son of Braja Mohan Nayak
At: Bhagabanpur, P.O.: Bhagabanpur
P.S.: Bhagabanpur, District: Nayagarh.
28. Bhakti Prasad Satapathy
Aged about 27 years
Son of Prasanna Kumar Satapathy
At: Gangadharpur Sasan
P.O.: Gangadharpur Sasan
District: Khurda.
29. Nabin Kumar Pradhan
Aged about 28 years
Son of Ganeswar Pradhan
At: Sunamuhin, P.O.: Baripada
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.
30. Abinash Prasad Sahoo
Aged about 26 years
Son of Ramakanta Sahoo
At: Gondia, P.O.: Gondia
P.S.: Gondia, District: Dhenkanal.
31. Anshuman Samantaray
Aged about 25 years
Son of Ashok Kumar Samantaray
At: Hirapur, P.O.: Botalam
P.S./ District: Khurda.
32. Omprava Khuntia
Aged about 24 years
Daughter of Subash Kumar Khuntia
At: Belabahali, P.O.: Belabahali
P.S.: Belabahali, District: Keonjhar.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 6 of 83
33. Amit Sekhar Jagadev
Aged about 23 years
Son of Ratnakar Jagadev
At: Narasinghpur, P.O.: Narasinghpur
P.S.: Narasinghpur, District: Nayagarh.
34. Debashis Nayak
Aged about 24 years
Son of Uttam Charan Nayak
At: Gandhapur, P.O.: Gandhapur
P.S.: Jagatsinghpur
District: Jagatsinghpur.
35. Pujarinee Behera
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Prahallad Behera
At: Palasama, P.O.: Palasama
P.S./ District: Deogarh.
36. Ashirbad Sa
Aged about 24 years
Son of Dhruba Sa
At: Tarabha, P.O.: Tarabha
P.S.: Tarabha, District: Sonepur.
37. Siva Achary
Aged about 28 years
Son of Siva Sankar Achary
At: Mayachhak, P.O.: Muktiguda
P.S.: Muktiguda, District: Kalahandi.
38. Arpan Samanta
Aged about 23 years
Son of Purushottam Samanta
At: Dharanabeda, P.O.: Mantriguda
P.S.: Mantriguda, District: Nabarangpur.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 7 of 83
39. Matruprasad Dash
Aged about 22 years
Son of Santosh Kumar Dash
At: Dudurkote, P.O.: Nandapur
P.S.: Hindol, District: Dhenkanal.
40. Karunakar Kuanr
Aged about 23 years
Son of Ghundu Kuanr
At: Mahada, P.O.: Mahada
P.S.: Mahada, District: Mahada.
41. Jagannath Pradhan
Aged about 26 years
Son of Hrudananda Pradhan
At: Khaliapasi, P.O.: Kundheigola
P.S.: Kundheigola, District: Deogarh.
42. Pabitra Mohan Sahu
Aged about 21 years
Son of Pradeep Kumar Sahu
At: Paunshakuli, P.O.: Gambharia
P.S.: Paunshakuli
District: Balasore.
43. Subhasmita Rout
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Susanta Ranjan Rout
At: Rampur, P.O.: Ramakrushnapur
P.S.: Barapada, District: Bhadrak.
44. Trinath Mohanta
Aged about 23 years
Son of Pratap Chandra Mahanta
At: Bhurukundi, P.O.: Bhurukundi
P.S.: Purinda, District: Mayurbhanj.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 8 of 83
45. Soumya Ranjan Nayak
Aged about 24 years
Son of Niranjan Nayak
At: Balugaon, P.O.: Balugaon
P.S.: Balugaon, District: Nayagarh.
46. Abhishek Das
Aged about 24 years
Son of Ashok Kumar Das
At: Pahala, P.O.: Pahala
P.S.: Balianta, District: Khurda.
47. Soumyaranjan Ojha
Aged about 24 years
Son of Rabindra Kumar Ojha
At: Alana, P.O.: Kuradha
P.S.: Kuradha, District: Jagatsinghpur.
48. Saleena Garnayak
Aged about 21 years
Daughter of Nishakara Garnayak
At: Bajrakote, P.O.: Bajrakote
District: Angul.
49. Mitrabindarani Pradhan
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Jogendra Pradhan
At: Khairamal, P.O.: Jogipadar
P.S.: Khairamal, District: Boudh.
50. Tapaswini Mishra
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Sanjib Kumar Mishra
At: Korttal, P.O.: Sainto
P.S./District: Jagatsinghpur.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 9 of 83
51. Pradyumna Das
Aged about 25 years
Son of Prafulla Kumar Das
At: Sarbodaya Nagar
P.O.: Talabania,
P.S/District: Puri.
52. Subrat Kumar Dehury
Aged about 28 years
Son of Prafulla Kumar Dehury
At: Nathua, P.O.: Mahapada
P.S.: Mahapada, District: Dhenkanal.
53. Tapan Kumar Pradhan
Aged about 33 years
Son of Rebati Mohan Pradhan
At: Dhauragotha, P.O.: Reamal
P.S.: Rengalbeda, District: Deogarh.
54. Rohitaswa Pradhan
Aged about 29 years
Son of Purna Chandra Pradhan
At/P.O./P.S.: Kundhigola
District: Deogarh.
55. Saswat Kumar Sahoo
Aged about 28 years
Son of Rabindra Kumar Sahoo
At: Nua Bhuban, P.O.: Bhuban
P.S.: Bhuban, District: Dhenkanal.
56. Shibani Prasad Sahoo
Aged about 29 years
Son of Shishir Kumar Sahoo
At: Bamuan, P.O.: Baruan
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 10 of 83
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.
57. Manas Ranjan Nayak
Aged about 28 years
Son of Mangaraj Nayak
At/P.O.: Madhaba, P.S.: Niali
District: Cuttack.
58. Jayanta Kumar Mohanta
Aged about 23 years
Son of Taranisen Mohanta
At/P.O/P.S.: Purunia
District: Mayurbhanj.
59. Pravat Kumar Sahoo
Aged about 25 years
Son of Gouri Sankar Sahoo
At: Bada Gahama
P.O./P.S.: Maitapur
District: Bhadrak.
60. Tapan Kumar Barik
Aged about 26 years
Son of Birendranath Barik
At: Mandar, P.O./P.S.: Bhabanipatna
District: Kalahandi.
61. Sushree Sasmita Nayak
Aged about 24 years
Daughter of Debasis Nayak
At/P.O.: Similiguda
P.S./District: Koraput.
62. Satyaprakash Tripathy
Aged about 23 years
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 11 of 83
Son of Sudhanshu Tripathy
At: Belda, P.O.: Khandatara
P.S./District: Bhadrak.
63. Tikeswari Dani
Aged about 22 years
Daughter of Netrananda Dani
At/P.O.: Balisankara
P.S./District: Sundargarh.
64. Harsad Mohanta
Aged about 28 years
Son of Bhaktabandhu Mohanta
At: Godipokhari, P.O.: Rangamatia
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.
65. Baisakhi Swain
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Tophan Kumar Swain
At/P.O.: Mathakaragola
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.
66. Pabitra Kumar Khilar
Aged about 28 years
Son of Kishore Chandra Khilar
At: Sundaria, P.O.: Neulapur
P.S.: Chandikhole, District: Jajpur.
67. Subham Pradhan
Aged about 27 years
Son of Biswanath Pradhan
At/P.O.: Jakaikela, P.S.: Bonei
District: Sundargarh.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 12 of 83
68. Smrutinjaya Sahoo
Aged about 25 years
Son of Duryodhan Pradhan
At/P.O.: Satyabhamapur
P.S./District: Cuttack.
69. Kailash Amareswar Patra
Aged about 22 years
Son of Kanduru Patra
At/P.O.: Digdar, P.S.: Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj.
70. Sukka Soumya
Aged about 24 years
Son of Sukka Prakash Rao
At/P.O.: Goribandha
P.S.: Idudi, District: Gajapati.
71. Lipika Mohanta
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Mohan Chandra Mohanta
At: Dalamkucha,P.O.: Kundheikela
P.S./District: Sundargarh.
72. Mrutyunjaya Pradhan
Aged about 23 years
Son of Birendra Kumar Pradhan
At: Niladri Bihar 3rd Lane
P.O/P.S.: Bhanjanagar
District: Ganjam.
73. Pritam Priyabrata Chand
Aged about 25 years
Son of Lingaraj Chand
At: Bibhutipur,P.O/P.S.: Kakatpur
District: Puri.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 13 of 83
74. Ajay Kumar Pradhan
Aged about 23 years
Son of Dhanajaya Pradhan
At: Padakhola, P.O.: Sarapali
P.S.: Sarapali, District: Sambalpur.
75. Siba Prasad Nayak
Aged about 31 years
Son of Balakrushna Behera
At/P.O.: Baramunda
P.S.: Khandagiri
District: Khurda. ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture and
Farmers Empowerment
Krushi Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha.
2. Director
Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development
Krushi Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha.
3. Vice-Chancellor, OUAT, Siripur
Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 003, Odisha.
4. Odisha Staff Selection Commission
Represented through
Secretary
Unit-II, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha. ... Opposite parties.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 14 of 83
AND
1. Nirupama Tarai
Aged about 26 years
Daughter of Arjuna Tarai
At: Pandara, P.O.: GGP Colony
P.S.: Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar
District: Khurda, PIN: 751 025.
2. Rabi Narayan Das
Aged about 25 years
Son of Dhaneswar Das
At: Chilapatana, P.O.: Gabakunda
P.S.: Satyabadi, District: Puri
PIN: 752 045.
3. Sudhansu Sahoo
Aged about 27 years
Son of Bharat Sahoo
At/P.O./Village: Nischita Sasan
P.S.: Kudanagari, District: Kendrapara.
4. Mangulu Choudhury
Aged about 29 years
Son of Rajendra Choudhury
At/Village/P.O.: Manikyapur
P.S.: Badagada, District: Ganjam.
5. Sangeeta Tirkey
Aged about 30 years
Daughter of Sailash Tirkey
At/Village/P.O.: Tilia, P.S.: Talasara
District: Sundergarh.
6. Biswanath Saga
Aged about 32 years
Son of Bidyadhar Saha
Village: Chpundia, P.O.: Samana
P.S.: Nandipada
District: Keonjhar. ... Interveners.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 15 of 83
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi,
Ms. Sonali Panigrahi,
Advocates
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shantanu Das,
Nos.1 and 2 Additional Standing Counsel
For the Opposite Party : M/s. Sanjib Swain,
No.4 Siddharth Swain
Dibyojyoti Nayak, Advocates
For the Interveners : M/s. Sourav Das,
Rajat Kumar Mishra,
Tigmanshu Pattnaik,
Ms. Anwesha Mishra,
Ajaya Kumar Pradhan,
Saroj Kumar Swain,
Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Advocates
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Dates of Hearing : 06.11.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 06.12.2024
J UDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN,J.--
Advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC, dated
13.06.2023 inviting applications between 26.06.2023
to 26.07.2023 to appoint inter alia 245 numbers of
"Soil Conservation Extension Worker" in the
Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Department in the Category of Group-C vide
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 16 of 83
Annexure-12 is under challenge before this Court in
the present writ petition beseeching to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the
following prayer(s):
"It is therefore prayed that, in view of the facts and
circumstance of the above case, this Hon‟ble Court may
be graciously pleased to admit this writ application,
issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
by directing the opposite parties to show cause as to
why the advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC,
dated 13.06.2023, for the recruitment of the post of Soil
Conservation Extension Worker, Group-C only as per
Annexure-12 shall not be quashed;
And if the opp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, then this Hon‟ble Court may pass
any appropriate order as this Hon‟ble Court may deem
fit and proper for the ends of justice
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
Facts as stated in the writ petition:
2. Suffice it to refer to relevant factual matrix as outlined
in the pleadings.
2.1. The Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology
(OUAT), Bhubaneswar had established Agro-
Polytechnic Centres at Mahisapat in the district of
Dhenkanal, Ranital in the district of Bhadrak,
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 17 of 83
Deogarh, Boudh, Panposh in the district of
Sundargarh, Bolangir, Keonjhar, Semiliguda in the
district of Koraput, Chipilima in the district of
Sambalpur and Rangeilunda in the district of
Berhampur for offering two-years Diploma Course in
four disciplines, viz., Agriculture Science, Horticulture
Science, Animal Science and Fishery Science. During
the period of two-years Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic
Course, the students get trained in technical skill and
knowledge to meet the demand of new generation
agriculture in the State of Odisha.
2.2. The petitioners after being qualified in the Higher
Secondary Examination (+2, Science Stream), have
also undertaken further qualification of two-years
Diploma Course in "Agro-Polytechnic"/"Agriculture
Science"/"Horticulture Science" under the Odisha
University of Agriculture and Technology,
Bhubaneswar.
2.3. Though the Government of Odisha have introduced
two-years Diploma Course in Agro-Polytechnic since
the Academic Session 2012-13, no corresponding
opportunity of employment in the category either
Group-C or Group-B has yet been put in place. On the
other hand, the State Public Service Commissions in
the States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamilnadu
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 18 of 83
and Kerala, have floated advertisements/Notifications
by indicating that two-years Diploma in Agriculture
qualified candidates are eligible to apply for the posts
of Agriculture Officer Grade-II/Group-B posts.
2.4. Though other States have given the opportunity to
such Diploma holders, in the State of Odisha the
Odisha Public Service Commission has invited
applications by virtue of Advertisement No.13 of 2020-
21, for recruitment to the post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer in Class-II (Group-B) of the
Odisha Soil Conservation Service under the
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment Department,
from candidates possessing a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Agriculture or Bachelor of Science Degree in
Horticulture or Bachelor Degree in Agriculture
Engineering or Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry
from any recognised University or Institution. In the
Advertisement No.4 of 2022-23 also recruitment to the
post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in Class-II of
Group-B of the Odisha Agriculture and Food
Production Service under the Department of
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment required a
candidate to possess "Degree in Agriculture or
Horticulture or equivalent qualification from any
University or Institution recognized by any State
Government or the Government of India".
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 19 of 83
2.5. The candidates who have passed two-years Diploma
Course in Agro-Polytechnic of Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar have been
deprived of to apply for any corresponding opportunity
of employment under the Government of Odisha in the
Agriculture and Food Production Department and its
allied Departments. As the Government of Odisha has
not taken step to provide such Diploma holders the
opportunity of employment, the Director of
Polytechnic, Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology, Bhubaneswar vide Letter dated
19.02.2016 had communicated to the Opposite party
No.2-Soil Conservation and Watershed Department for
granting preference to such Diploma holders for
applying for the post of Village Agriculture Worker
(VAW) and Soil Conservation Extension Worker
("SCEW", for short) posts. The content of said letter is
extracted hereunder:
"No.36/DP/Dated 19.02.2016
To
The Commissioner-cum-Director,
Soil Conservation & Watershed,
Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
Sub.: Preference for Diploma students of Agro-
Polytechnic (Agricultural Science) and
(Horticultural Science) OUAT for the post of VAW
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 20 of 83
and Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) in
your esteemed Department.
Sir/Madam,
I am to inform you that there are 10 Agro-
Polytechnic Centres in 10 Agro-climatic Zones of
Odisha out of which six Centre are for Diploma in
Agricultural Science and two Centres are for
Diploma in Horticultural Science. The students
who pass out this two years Diploma course after
+2 Science are very much technically competent as
per the need of Government and to work at the
grass root level to help the farming community and
to increase the skill of the farmers.
Therefore, I request to give preference in providing
them the jobs like V.A.W. and Soil Conservation
Extension Worker in your esteemed Department.
Your consideration in this regard will definitely
boost the confidence of our students, and also help
the farming community in particular to increase
the production and productivity in Agriculture and
allied sector of the State.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- 19.02.2016
Director of Polytechnic
OUAT, Bhubaneswar"
2.6. Similarly, for ensuring the students of Diploma in
Agro-Polytechnic (Agriculture) suitable job, the Vice-
Chancellor of Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology, Bhubaneswar issued Letter dated
19.03.2016, which is reproduced hereunder:
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 21 of 83
"No.92/VC/19th March,2016
To
The Principal Secretary to Govt.
Agriculture Department
Govt. of Odisha
Rajeev Bhawan, Bhubaneswar.
Sub.: Grievance of Diploma in Agro-polytechnic
(Agriculture) students for suitable job opportunities
in Govt. Sector-reg.
Sir,
In inviting a reference to the above subject, I am to
enclose herewith the original representation of
Diploma in Agro-polytechnic (Agril./Hort.) students
for their suitable absorption in Govt. of Odisha
sector.
This is worthwhile to mention that the course
programme of 2 year duration after +2Sc. have
been started from the academic session 2012-13
in 10 centres spread over the State. Out of which
six are in agricultural science and two are in
horticultural science, one each in animal science &
fisheries science. In the meantime the 1st Batch
students have successfully passed out in 2014
acquiring the required knowledge and skill to suit
to the grass root level para professionals / para
extension workers. But so far, have not been
suitably employed in Govt. Sector & its
undertakings. The students are approaching time
and again and pressing hard to the University
Authorities for their employment as mentioned
above.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 22 of 83
In view of the above facts and due consideration to
the demand of the students it is requested that
these candidates well equipped with technical skill
and knowledge may please be considered for
recruitment to the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW in
various departments under your control with
minimum qualification of Diploma in Agro-
polytechnic only instead of 5% extra weightage in
written examination conducted by Odisha
Subordinate Staff Selection Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Vice-Chancellor."
2.7. In order to address the difficulties faced by the
Diploma holders in Agro-Polytechnic in Agriculture
Science and Horticulture Science, an Order dated
15.05.2023 has come to be issued to study the
possibility of inclusion of Agro-Polytechnic pass-out
students for preferential treatment in employment
opportunities by the Department of Agriculture and
Farmers‟ Empowerment. Said Order stands thus:
"Government of Odisha
Department of Agriculture & Farmers‟ Empowerment
ORDER
No.DAFE-RESH-MISC-0037-2023/10489/A&FE, Date 15.05.2023 A Committee is hereby constituted with the following members to examine the grievance of W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 23 of 83 Agro-Polytechnic pass-out for appointment in the posts of VAW, HEW, SCEW and LI etc.
1. Vice-Chancellor, OUAT Chairman
2. Director, Agriculture & FP, Odisha Member
3. Director, Horticulture, Odisha Member
4. Director, Soil Conservation & WD, Odisha Member
5. Additional Secretary to Government Member/ (Research), Deptt. of Agriculture & FE Convenor The Committee shall go through the procedures adopted in other states on inclusion of Agro-Polytechnic pass-out with preference in appointments in Agriculture and allied Departments.
Basing on the recommendation of the above Committee, suitable proposal will be initiated for Government approval.
By order of the Principal Secretary, Sd/-
Additional Secretary to Government."
2.8. It is the case of the petitioners that while the Members of the Committee were exploring the possibility of employment opportunity to such Diploma holders, and have not yet taken decision regarding granting of preference in appointments to Agro-Polytechnic pass- out candidates, the issue of Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 by opposite party No.4-Odisha Staff Selection Commission ("OSSC", for brevity) to fill up 245 numbers of vacant posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker in Group-C Category without W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 24 of 83 providing for preferential treatment in appointments without waiting for the decision/recommendation of the said Committee compelled the petitioners to approach this Court in the present writ petition.
2.9. Relevant portion of the said Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 is extracted hereunder:
"Advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC Date:13.06.2023 Detailed Advertisement for Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-„C‟ Specialist Posts/Services under various Departments, Government of Odisha.
(POST CODE:367) (WEBSITE: www.ossc.gov.in)
1. Application Invited:
Start Date End Date
Online Registration 26.06.2023 24.07.2023
Submission of Online 26.06.2023 26.07.2023
Application Form
Date of editing Online 27.06.2023 30.07.2023
Application Form
Mode of Application Online Mode only through the
website "www.ossc.gov.in" .No
physical copy/Hard copy of the
Online Application Form needs to
be submitted by the applicant.
a. Appointment shall be guided by "Combined
Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts/Services Rules, 2022".
b. Applications are invited online through the OSSC website "www.ossc.govt.in" for recruitment to fill up the vacancies in the following offices under Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or equivalent W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 25 of 83 Recruitment Examination for Specialist posts/services Rules, 2022 for various Departments of Govt. of Odisha.
Sl. Name of Name of Total Classificatio Pay Matrix
No. Posts/ the No. of n of Posts Level &
Services Department Vacan Scale of
/ Heads of cy Pay (as per
Department 7th Pay
in which Commissio
vacancy n)
exists for
this
recruitment
1. Weaving Directorate 03 Group-B Level-9
Supervisor of Textiles 35,400-
(Provisional) 1,12,400
2. Soil Directorate 245 Group-C Level-5
Conservation of Soil 21700-
Extension Conservati 69,100
Worker on &
Watershed
Developme
nt
3. Technical Directorate 19 Group-C Level-4
Assistant of Textiles 19,900-
(Provisional) 63,200
4. Amin Water 75 Group-C Level-3
Resources 18,000-
Department 56,900
5. Amin Directorate 12 Group-C Level-3
of Town 18,000-
Planning 56,900/-
***
Educational Qualification prescribed for the posts:
The Educational Qualification essential for different posts are as follows:
Sl.No. Name of the Post Essential Educational Qualification
1. Weaving Supervisor Must have passed Diploma in Handloom Technology / Textile Technology From IIHT/ other recognized institution.
2. Soil Conservation +2 Science or +2 Vocational course I Extension Worker Agriculture related subject i.e. Crop Production (CP)/ Horticulture/ Repair & Maintenance of Power Driven farm W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 26 of 83 Machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized Board/ Council or institution.
3. Technical Assistant HSC or Matriculation with PMF/Handloom Weaving & Design Training in Govt. organization. The candidate other than IHWD, Khordha having done Diploma or any other course from any other Govt. recognized institute and intends to apply for the post will be required to obtain a certificate from the Head of the Institute of Handloom Weaving & Design Khordha, Odisha to the effect that the syllabus covered in the Diploma or any other training course done by them.
4. Amin under Water Must have passed Higher Secondary Resources Examination (10+2) from Council of Department Higher Secondary Education, Odisha or Equivalent Examination and must have basic computer knowledge.
5. Amin under the HSC and National Trade Certificate Directorate of Town (NTC) passed in Draughtsman Civil.
Planning ***"
2.10. It is also alleged that the State of Odisha has provided employment opportunity for selection of successful candidates of every academic curriculum, yet it has caused discrimination in the matter of employment to the two-years Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic pass-out students by not providing any opportunity of employment in either Group-C or Group-B category of posts from the Academic Session 2012-13 till date. As the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 vide Annexure-12 has been issued with undue haste at the time when the Committee Members have been exploring W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 27 of 83 possibility of including such candidates in the lines of candidates of other States including the neighbouring State, the opposite parties, therefore, have not treated the petitioners with fairness and their action is tainted with arbitrariness, and offends provisions of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The future of such Diploma holders is in doldrums.
2.11. Hence, the present writ petition.
Hearing:
3. On being noticed, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit on 16.04.2024 and the opposite party No.4 on 03.05.2024.
3.1. Interlocutory Applications have been filed for consideration of plight of interveners-petitioners, who have been declared successful in the process of recruitment vide Advertisement dated 13.06.2023.
3.2. Since pleadings are complete and 245 numbers of posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker are required to be filled up in response to the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023, as conceded by the counsel for the respective parties, final hearing of the matter got concluded on 06.11.2024 and Judgment has been kept reserved for pronouncement on later date.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 28 of 83Contentions, submissions and arguments:
4. Sri Kalpataru Panigrahi, learned Advocate for the petitioners reiterating facts narrated in the petition submitted that restricting the applicants eligibility criteria to "+2 Science or +2 Vocational course I Agriculture related subject i.e. Crop Production (CP)/ Horticulture/Repair & Maintenance of Power Driven farm Machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized Board/ Council or institution." without affording opportunity of employment to the Diploma holders of Agriculture Science and Horticulture Science is violative of provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4.1. He has referred to the following observation made by this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties vide Order dated 20.07.2023:
"4. On perusal of the advertisement under Annexure-
12, it appears that the said posts belong to Group- C category and there are altogether 245 posts advertisement to be filled up pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-12.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners have done Diploma in Agro- Polytechnic (Agriculture Science) and (Horticulture Science). Learned counsel for the petitioners, draw attention of this Court to the letter dated 15.05.2023 under Annexure-11, submitted that W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 29 of 83 the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment have constituted a committed five members to examine the grievance of Agro- Polytechnic pass-out candidates for appointment to the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW and LI etc. The committee also looked into the matter and submits a report before the Government. Further, it reveals that basing on recommendation of the committable, a suitable proposal initiated for Government approval. He further contended that although such decision taken on 15.05.2023 and a committee was constituted, however, advertisement was issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission on 13.06.2023 under Annexure-13 passing the last date of submission of application on 26.07.2023. Therefore, the main contain of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as a result of which the petitioners have been deprived of liberty to apply for the posts and in the process to be considered for appointment to such posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in course of his argument, also referred to recommendation made by the Director of Polytechnic under Annexure-9 as well as Vice- Chancellor of OUAT, Bhubaneswar dated 19.03.2016 under Annexure-10 wherein it has been strongly recommended to accept this Agro- Polytechnic (Agriculture) as well as Horticulture for appointment for the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the advertisement of different States for recruitment for the post of SCEW submitted that W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 30 of 83 the other States have accepted Diploma Agropolytechnic for recruitment to different categories for the posts to fill up Agriculture and Horticulture.
7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners have not approached the departmental authorities before approaching this Court. He further contended that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they should approach the department, they shall definitely taken decision keeping in view the constitution of committee under Annexure-11 and the recommendation made by Vice-Chancellor, OUAT, Bhubaneswar as well as Polytechnic has not been forwarded by requisition of the department several week under Annexure-
12. Therefore, the OSSC has not committed including some posts in not accepting the application of the petitioners for appointment to the advertised posts.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, particularly, keeping in view the fact that the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment has specifically constituted a committed on 15.05.2023 to look into the grievance of Agropolytechnic posts a few candidates to the post SCEW and while the committee was examining the said issue, the OSCC has become advertisement under Annexure-
12. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that while the case of the petitioners is not consideration posts to recruitment 245 SCEW.W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 31 of 83
9. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to hear the matter further altogether issue notice to the Opposite Parties. Since Mr. T. Pattanaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Four extra coipies of the writ petition be served on him by Monday (24.07.2023)."
5. Per contra, Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel has relied on the following paragraphs to refute the contention of Sri Kalpataru Panigrahi, learned Advocate:
"6. That, in compliance to the aforesaid directions, the opposite party No.1 vide its order No.3401, dated 20.02.2024 has withdrawn its earlier Department Order No.10489, dated 15.05.2023. While withdrawing the earlier order dated 15.05.2023, it was observed by the Opp. Party No.1 that the recommendation to grant preferential treatment to the Petitioners holding Diploma in Agro Polytechnic course does not merit any consideration in view of no differential skill set acquired by them pursuant to completion of Diploma course. ***
7. That, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Hon‟ble Court, the issue was examined by the Committee and the OSD-cum-Addl. Secretary to Govt. who is the Member/Convenor of the said Committee has submitted a report vide Letter No.2211, dated 01.02.2024, wherein it has been mentioned that as per the Odisha Sub-
Ordinate Soil Conservation Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 32 of 83 persons appointed to different Group-C & D posts) issued by the Opp. Party No.1 vide Resolution No.11804, dated 27.07.2015, the essential qualification prescribed for Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) is +2 Science or +2 Vocational Course in Agriculture related subjects i.e. Crop Production/Horticulture/ Repair & Maintenance of Power Driven Farm machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized Board/Council or Institution. ***
8. That, since the entry qualification for the Agro-
Polytechnic Diploma Programme is +2 Science and the persons holding Diploma Agro-Polytechnic course are having +2 Science qualification, they are eligible for the post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) and they can take part in the recruitment process for such posts like other +2 Science candidates. It is stated that the Petitioners have admitted the same at Paragraph No.3 of the Writ Application. The Petitioners are claiming preferential treatment to the post of SCEW without giving any justifiable cause.
9. That, in the instant case, it is humbly submitted that any preferential treatment in case of higher qualification/higher qualified candidates would lead to the situation where the importance of the written examination for the post of SCEW will be substantially diluted and the merit of the candidates will be compromised.
10. It is submitted that the plea of the Petitioners to grant them preferential treatment to the post of SCEW is contrary to the well settled principles of W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 33 of 83 law that the fixation of eligibility conditions to a public cost is lies in the exclusive domain of the appointee/employer and judicial review is not permissible in matters of fixing eligibility criteria. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Pusparani, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, has held that the prescription of minimum eligibility qualification is in realm of the employer and the Courts have a limited judicial review in fixation of eligibility condition.
11. That, the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for arbitrariness. The Petitioners have also failed to show cause as to how they have acquired a special skill set required for the post of SCEW in comparison to other degrees which has been listed out for the eligibility criteria. The Petitioners by acquiring Diploma in Agro Polytechnic do not constitute a separate class which will warrant any preferential treatment in public recruitment given by the State Govt. In the event, the plea of the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition is accepted by this Hon‟ble Court, the same will be amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
5.1. Refuting the contention of the petitioners that the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 could not have been published before consideration of the Committee with respect to employment opportunities of the Diploma holders of Agriculture Science and Horticulture W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 34 of 83 Science, as given impression to this Court which is reflected in the Order dated 20.07.2023, Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that in order to consider the grievance of the Petitioners holding the qualification of Agro- Polytechnic passed out applicants, the opposite party No.1 had constituted Committee vide Order No. 10479 dated 15.03.2023 to go through the procedure adopted in the other States, but said order has been withdrawn by a decision of the opposite party No.1. The Order of withdrawal stands thus:
""Government of Odisha Department of Agriculture & Farmers‟ Empowerment ORDER No.DAFE-RESH-MISC-0037-2023/3401/A&FE, Date 20.02.2024 A Committee was constituted vide this Department Order No.10489, dated 15.05.2023 to examine the grievance of the Agro-Polytechnic pass-out students for appointment in the posts of VAW, HEW, SCEW, etc. After careful consideration, it is found that the any recommendation by the Committee would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This Department Order No.10489 dated 15.05.2023 is hereby withdrawn.W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 35 of 83
By order of the Principal Secretary, Sd/-
Under Secretary to Government."
5.2. It is further submitted that the Petitioners having +2 Science qualification are eligible to apply and participate in the recruitment process for the post of SCEW against the total vacant posts of 245. The demand for granting preference to the petitioners to the post of SCEW is not supported by any legal right. No candidate can demand for according preference for selection to particular post. Therefore, he submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been addressed to appropriately by the State Government.
6. Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate appearing for the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (opposite party No.4), referred to following paragraphs in the counter affidavit filed on its behalf:
"3. That the aforesaid writ application has been filed challenging the Advertisement dt.13.6.2023 (Ann-
12) issued by this OP No-4 (OSSC) for "Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-
"C" Specialist posts/services under various Departments, Govt. of Odisha". The present case is regarding recruitment to the 245 numbers of posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW), Group-"C" only.W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 36 of 83
4. That this Hon‟ble Court while issuing notice in the aforesaid matter has been pleased to pass the following interim Order dated 20.7.2023:
"I.A. No.10811 of 202311. Heard.
12. Issue notice as above.
13. As an interim measure, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.4 is at liberty that the selection process shall continue pursuant to Annexure-12 Advertisement, however, 75 posts in the category of Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) shall not be filled up till the next date.
14. Further keeping in view the urgency of the matter, a committee constitute pursuant to order under Annexure-11 as directed to examine the issue and submit its report within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order by the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application."
5. That it may be noted here that on the basis of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) OR Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-B/Group-C Specialists Posts/Services Rules, 2022 different HODs and Departments of Government such as Directorate of Textiles, Directorate of Town Planning, Water Resources Department and W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 37 of 83 Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development Department have submitted requisitions in the year 2023 for conduct of recruitment against the vacancies in the posts of Weaving Supervisor (03 vacancies), Technical Assistant (19 vacancies), Amin (12 vacancies under Directorate Town Planning), Amin (75 vacancies under Water Resources Department) and Soil Conservation Extension Worker (245 vacancies).
6. That on the basis of the requisitions received, this opposite party No.4 (OSSC) published an advertisement bearing No.2273/OSSC dt.13.06.2023 for recruitment to the post of Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) OR Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-B/ Group-C Specialists Posts/Services under various Department, Government of Odisha in which Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) is a part of the recruitment."
6.1. Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate, thus, submitted that the Director, Soil Conservation and Watershed Development was requested vide Letter No. 446/OSSC dated 31.01.2024 to furnish the detail break up of category-wise vacancies including special category vacancies of 75 posts which shall not be filled up as per the aforesaid Interim Order dated 20.07.2023 of this Court. But the Director, Soil Conservation and Watershed Development in their Letter No. 1281/SC&WD, dated 06.02.2024 expressed that their W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 38 of 83 Office is not aware of the categories of 75 candidates who filed WP(C) No.22679 of 2023 in respect of whom they are unable to provide the category-wise break up. Thus, the OSSC is not in a position to know about vacancies which have not been filled up, as a result of which the processing of results of these posts has not been finalised.
7. Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate representing intervener-petitioners would submit that the Interveners have cleared the Preliminary Examination, the Main Written Examination and have also participated in the Certificate Verification on being provisionally admitted/selected.
7.1. With vehemence she could urge that the requisite qualification for the posts of SCEW (Group-C) was specified in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 to the effect that the candidates possessing "+2 Science or +2 Vocational Course in Agriculture related subject, i.e., Crop Production (CP)/Horticulture/Repair and Maintenance of Power Driven Farm Machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized Board/Council or institution" can only apply. Accordingly the intervener- petitioner(s) being qualified applied online for the said post and remained in the selection process.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 39 of 837.2. It is further asserted by Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate that in terms of the aforesaid Advertisement, the appointments for the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ and Group-„C‟ Specialist Posts or Services under various Departments is guided by "the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022" (for convenience referred to as "Combined Rules, 2022"), which is promulgated in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that Schedule-I appended to said Rules in Serial No.4 related to "Soil Conservation Extension Worker under the Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development" it has been clearly stated that "There are no recruitment rules for the post. The syllabus and the pattern of the examination have not been prescribed. Hence, Odisha Staff Selection Commission shall decide the syllabus and pattern of examination in consultation with the concerned Departments or HoDs by invoking the Rule 13 of Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 and its subsequent amendments till date".
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 40 of 837.3. Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned counsel for the intervener- petitioners with well-researched precedent Dr. R.K. Goyal Vrs. State of U.P., (1996) 11 SCC 658, to counter viewpoint of Sri Kalpataru Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, reinforced her stance that the OSSC has prescribed the syllabus and the pattern of examination in consultation with the concerned Departments or HoDs.
7.4. Suavely presenting the case of intervenors, Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate effectively articulates the arguments in favour of the opposite parties‟ position that the Courts cannot direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or fixing the eligibility criteria in relevance to the averment in the present writ application that the Committee established vide Order dated 15.05.2023 had taken no steps towards allowing or recommending the candidates having Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic to participate for the post of SCEW, and the concerned Departments or HoDs also have not made any attempt to include Diploma in Polytechnic to be a part of curriculum for the post of SCEW.
7.5. Amplifying her argument, she would contend that as is manifest from the counter affidavit of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 it is explicit that the Committee W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 41 of 83 formed by Order dated 15.05.2023 has been withdrawn by virtue of Order dated 22.02.2024. Therefore, she objects to the prayer made by the petitioners in I.A. No.6602 of 2024, wherein it has been prayed for grant of permission to amend the writ petition to question such withdrawal of the Committee. She has proceeded to impress upon this Court that pursuant to Order dated 20.07.2023 passed in the I.A. No.10811 of 2023 as the opposite parties have been allowed to continue with the process of recruitment in connection with the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023, with respect to SCEW, even if such process being concluded by the opposite party No.4, the posts are not filled up in obedience to said interim order and pendency of the writ petition. Allowing the amendment would tantamount to change of the nature and the character of the writ petition at this belated stage. It would prejudice the selected candidates who are waiting for issue of appointment letters. Hence, Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the intervener-applicants strenuously urged to dismiss the writ petition.
Analysis, discussions and consideration of contentions and submissions:
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 42 of 838. Taking first the question whether it is prudent to allow amendment application in I.A. No.6602 of 2024, on the available pleadings and taking note of submissions it is quite clear that the Government of Odisha after forming Committee to examine the grievance of the petitioners to include Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic Course relating to Agriculture Science and Horticulture Science for the post of SCEW and give preference in selection for such job, the same was withdrawn. This being policy decision of the Government of Odisha, there is little scope for the writ Court to intervene. Furthermore, this Court while entertaining the writ petition vide Order dated 20.07.2023 clarified that the recruitment process would continue, but posts in the category SCEW would not be filled up. It is made ex facie clear by the opposite party No.4-OSSC in its counter affidavit that "all steps as per the requisition and the instruction given by the State Government with respect to recruitment to the 245 numbers of posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW), Group-C". It is also sought to be clarified by answering opposite party No.4 that "since this is a combined recruitment, the candidates having eligibility for more than one post are asked to exercise their preference/choice for the post". To illustrate, the opposite party No.4 has W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 43 of 83 made valiant attempt to persuade this Court that several candidates who opted for the post of SCEW, also applied for the post of Amin, as they possess +2 Science qualification which is common eligibility criteria for both the categories of posts. As a consequence thereof, the results of both the categories of posts are required to be published simultaneously. It is submitted by Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate for the Odisha Staff Selection Commission that since this Court in the interim order has restrained not to fill up the post of SCEW, the post of Amin also could not be filled up. It is asserted by the counsel for the opposite parties that the Preliminary Examination was conducted on 17.12.2023 and its results have been declared vide Notification No.77(C)/ OSSC, 13.02.2024, Notification No.79(C)/OSSC, dated 15.02.2024 and Notification No.81(C)/OSSC, dated 16.02.2024. The main written examination has also been conducted and its results have already been published vide Notification No.95(C)/OSSC, dated 06.04.2024 and Notification No.97(C)/OSSC, dated 08.04.2024. As has been impressed upon this Court by the counsel for the intervener-applicants, Ms. Agnisikha Ray, that the candidates being provisionally selected have already participated in the process of Certificate Verification. Therefore, this Court is of the W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 44 of 83 considered view that allowing the amendment application at this juncture would clog the recruitment process and such a course would further protract the matter which would lead to put the future of large numbers of selected candidates in tenterhook and restrain the Government from filling up large number of vacancies in the post of SCEW. Hence, this Court declines to allow the prayer of the petitioners to amend the writ petition by incorporating challenge made to Order dated 20.02.2024 of the Department of Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment withdrawing the Order dated 15.05.2023 constituting Committee, which is an independent cause of action.
9. Coming to the main issue whether the petitioners holders of Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic qualification after having +2 Science qualification can be allowed employment opportunity by directing the opposite party No.1 to grant them preference, it can only be stated that it is the domain of the employer for deciding the eligibility criteria for a particular job/post.
9.1. It may be apt to have reference to following observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. R.K. Goyal Vrs. State of U.P., (1996) Supp.9 SCR 543 = (1996) 11 SCC 658, as relied on by Ms. W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 45 of 83 Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate for the intervener- applicants:
"*** We find no substance in this contention because even the regulations framed by the Medical Council with respect to the qualifications recommended for appointment as teachers in medical colleges are only directory in nature as held by this Court in Dr. Ganga Prasad Venna and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (1995) Supp.1 SCC 192. It is really within the domain of the State Government to prescribed qualifications for appointment to various posts in State Services. Though recruitment to the State medical services falls within the purview of the State Government, they are expected to comply with the regulations made by the Council in order to maintain high standard of medical education as held by this Court in Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 401 and Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Etc. Vrs. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao & Anr. Etc., reported in (1988) 3 SCR 173. Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act enable the Council to prescribe by making regulations minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualifications by Universities or medical institutions in India and that would include prescribed minimum qualifications for appointment as teachers of medical education. As State Governments are thus expected to comply with the recommendations made by the Medical Council from time to time and if the State Governments comply with such recommendations irrespective of whether they are approved by the Central Government or not, it cannot be W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 46 of 83 said that in doing so they have acted arbitrarily or illegally."
9.2. What should be qualification for a particular job requirement has been discussed in Post Graduate Institute Vrs. J.B. Dilawari, 1988 Supp SCC 355 as follows:
"5. The membership of the Institute Body has in the meantime undergone a considerable change. Similarly the relevant statutory Boards and Committees of the Institute are by now being manned by new blood in different degrees. What exactly should be the appropriate qualification for the Professor of the super speciality in Paediatric Gastroenterology is a matter for the expert body to decide and the court should be slow to impose its opinion. ***
6. Respondent 1‟s contentions which prevailed with the High Court are that the creation of the post was not in accordance with law, the qualifications prescribed for the Professor in the superspeciality were not appropriate and the entire action beginning from creation of the post to selection of Dr Saroj Mehta is vitiated by mala fides.
7. With the finding recorded above, the first contention is negatived. Next comes the question as to whether the prescription of the qualifications for the post of Professor was appropriate. Dr Dilawari has taken the stand that the qualifications were tailored to ensure Dr Saroj Mehta‟s selection and though M.D. in W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 47 of 83 Paediatrics should not be the qualification for the post of Professor in the superspeciality, the Institute accepted it. The High Court accepted the allegation. We do not intend to pronounce any view on settling the qualifications as we propose to ask the Institute and its authorities to refix the same.
8. Specialisation is the order of the day. About half a century back, a general medical practitioner was in a position to attend to all human ailments in accordance with the then known methods of treatment. Today for the purpose of medical attention the human body has been divided into several parts and expertise with regard to these has so developed that specialisation has become the order of the day. Though the court, it is stated, is the expert of experts, it is proper to take note of its limitations. Realization of this situation has led to a series of pronouncements where this Court has reiterated the position that matters involving expertise should be left to be handled by expert bodies."
9.3. Following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puneet Sharma Vrs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (2021) 4 SCR 351 may be apposite for reference:
"26. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 = (2018) 14 SCR 1082 the post in question was "Technician-III" in the Power Development Department in the State of W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 48 of 83 Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with respect to qualification was "Matric with ITI in the relevant trade." The appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were included in the list of disqualified candidates. This resulted in litigation which ultimately culminated in the judgment of this court. This Court held in its judgment14:
„Under the above provisions as well as in the advertisement which was issued by the Board, every candidate must possess the prescribed academic/professional/technical qualification and must fulfil all other eligibility conditions. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Technician- III in the Power Development Department is a Matric with ITI in the relevant trade. The Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted for candidates with a Diploma in Electrical Engineering while in other districts candidates with a Diploma had not been considered to be eligible for the post of Technician-III. Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade, namely, the Electrical trade is the prescribed qualification specified in the advertisement.‟
27. Thereafter, the Court discussed the previous rulings in P.M. Latha & Anr. Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 = (2003) 2 SCR 653; Jyoti KK Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596; and State of Punjab Vrs. Anita, W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 49 of 83 (2015) 2 SCC 170 = (2014) 14 SCR 819, then concluded that the candidature of the diploma holders was correctly rejected and held as follows:
„26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 in the subsequent decision in State of Punjab Vrs. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170. The decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs.W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 50 of 83
Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No.135 of 2017, decided on 12.10.2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services.
Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 51 of 83 administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 turned.‟
28. It would be also useful to notice a later judgment of this court, in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vrs. Anit Kumar Das, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 where the issue was, whether for the post of peon in the appellant Bank, a degree holder (graduate) could be appointed, given the conscious decision of the employer, that only those who held 10+2 pass qualifications would be considered and those with graduation qualification could not be considered. This court held that the appointment of the respondent, who was a graduate, after he suppressed the fact that he held a degree, and did not disclose it, was W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 52 of 83 unsupportable. In this context, it was observed that as to what qualifications are applicable to what class of posts, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the employer, which the Courts would be slow to interdict. This decision too supports the conclusions in the present case, since the employer, HPSEB asserts that it considers degree holders eligible for appointment to the post of JE.
29. In the present case, what is evident from the rules is that direct recruitment to the post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of 72%. Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent qualification. However, this Court is of the opinion that the diploma holders' contention that the minimum qualification is matriculation and that the technical qualification is diploma is incorrect. The minimum qualification for the post cannot be deemed to be only matriculation but rather that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2 pass students, who are diploma holders would be eligible. The term "with" in this category has to be read as conjunctive.
30. As far as the merits of the main question i.e. whether degree holders too can apply for the post of JEs, a close examination of the rules shows that a lion‟s share of the posts at the JE level is set apart for direct recruitment. However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer which is a promotional post direct recruitment is only to the extent of 36%. Of the balance 64%, W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 53 of 83 various sub-quotas have been stipulated for feeder cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior Engineers. For a long time, even on the date of the advertisement, two distinct quotas (of 5%) had been set apart for promotion of Junior Engineers holding degree qualifications in the concerned subject.
31. This Court is conscious that the issue in question is whether the minimum qualification of a diploma in electrical or electronic engineering or other prescribed qualifications includes a degree in that discipline. However, the rules have to be considered as a whole. So viewed, the two sub- quotas are:
(1) 5% enabling those diploma holders who acquire degree qualifications during service as Junior Engineers; and (2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before joining as Junior Engineers;
32. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule making authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree holders too could compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher qualifications. If such interpretation were not given, there would be no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those who were degree holders before joining as Junior Engineers in terms of the recruitment rules as existing.
*** W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 54 of 83
37. The considerations which weighed with this court in the previous decisions, i.e., P.M. Latha & Anr. Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 = (2003) 2 SCR 653, Yogesh Kumar & Ors Vrs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 548 = (2003) 2 SCR 662, State of Punjab Vrs. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 = (2014) 14 SCR 819; were quite different from the facts of this case. This court‟s conclusions that the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is generally regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain categories of posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well as Anita (supra) those possessing degrees or post-graduation or B.Ed. degrees, were not considered eligible for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a similar manner, for "Technician-III" or lower post, the equivalent qualification for the post of Junior Engineer, i.e., diploma holders were deemed to have been excluded, in Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 = (2018) 14 SCR 1082. This court is cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well as Zahoor (supra) the stipulation in Jyoti (supra) which enabled consideration of candidates with higher qualifications was deemed to be a distinguishing ground. No such stipulation exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance is the fact that the higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 55 of 83 distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule makers not to exclude degree holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers."
9.4. In Ankita Thakur Vrs. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, (2023) 16 SCR 813 it is stated as follows:
"In light of the law above, since we find that there exists no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any other qualification as higher or equivalent to the one specified therein, the claim of such candidates, who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed essential qualifications, is liable to be rejected and has rightly been rejected by the High Court as well. Issue No.(vi) is decided accordingly."
9.5. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Vrs. Anit Kumar Das, (2020) 9 SCR 925 it has been laid down as follows:
"7. In the case of Yogesh Kumar Vrs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 = (2003) 2 SCR 662, it is observed and held by this Court that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post.
*** W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 56 of 83 7.3 Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement."
9.6. It may also need to be highlighted through the following observation contained in Basic Education Board Vrs. Upendra Rai, (2008) 2 SCR 707 Court is not W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 57 of 83 competent to declare equivalence of qualification for eligibility for a particular assignment:
"15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.
***
19. A perusal of the NCTE Act [National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993] shows that this Act was made to regulate the teachers training system and the teachers training institutes in the country. It may be mentioned that there are two types of educational institutions--
(1) ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate colleges and universities and (2) teachers‟ training institutes.
The NCTE Act only deals with the second category of institutions viz. teachers‟ training institutes. It has nothing to do with the ordinary educational institutions referred to above. Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act, and the essential qualifications are prescribed by W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 58 of 83 the local Acts and Rules in each State. In U.P. the essential qualification for appointment as a primary school teacher in a Junior Basic School is prescribed by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. A person who does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress in a Junior Basic School."
9.7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan Kumar Baral Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.1365 of 2022, vide Judgment dated 30.10.2024 held as follows:
"24. In view of the law discussed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions1, it can be easily deduced as under:
i. The State, as an employer, while prescribing qualifications for a post may legitimately bear in mind several features including--
(a) the nature of the job,
(b) the aptitudes requisite for the efficient
discharge of duties,
(c) the functionality of a qualification and
1 Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404; Jyoti
K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596; Puneet Sharma and others Vrs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 2221; Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Vrs. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80; Unnikrishnan CV Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
343. W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 59 of 83
(d) the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification;
ii. Further, the State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services;
iii. The exigencies of administration fall within the domain of administrative decision- making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure;
iv. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post as the qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be;
v. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications.
25. In such view of the matter, the qualification prescribed under Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 2013, as the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of JFTA does not require interference by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the said prescription is in violation of any constitutional or legal provision.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 60 of 8326. This writ application has no merit and is dismissed accordingly."
9.8. In Commr., Corpn. of Madras Vrs. Madras Corpn.
Teachers‟ Mandram, (1997) 1 SCC 253 it has been laid down as:
"It is a well-settled legal position that it is the legal or executive policy of the Government to create a post or to prescribe the qualifications for the post. The Court or Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The impugned direction, therefore, is clearly illegal."
9.9. In Ashish Kumar Vrs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4088 it has been observed that, "24. The Petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vrs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, AIR 2007 SC 2588 to the effect that even a policy decision of the State would be amenable to judicial review if they were contrary to the recruitment rules. Reliance was also placed on the decision dated 31st July 2009, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4977 of 2009 (Ajaya Kumar Das Vrs. State of Odisha)2 which is to the same effect.
2 Ajaya Kumar Das Vrs. State of Odisha, (2009) 12 SCR 219 wherein it has been held, "That Orissa Service Code has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. It is well settled that Statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended only by a Rule or Notification duly made under Article 309 and not otherwise. Whatever be the efficacy of the Executive Orders or Circulars or Instructions, Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive Orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace the Statutory Rules. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the administrative Instructions or Circulars."
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 61 of 8325. In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that the clarification issued by the OFB3 on 12th October 2018 is inconsistent to SRO 145 and calls for interference. On the other hand, the decision dated 14th September 2012 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6468 of 2012 (State of Gujarat Vrs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari)4 appears to be relevant in the context. In para 7 of the said judgment, it was held as under:
„7. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that, the same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute. In a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational qualification(s) may be permissible, provided that the rules empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. However, the said power should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/Authority is conferred upon the Government/Authority to meet any 3 Ordnance Factory Board.
4 State of Gujarat Vrs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 7 SCR 1072.W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 62 of 83
emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. (Vide: State of Haryana Vrs. Subhash Chandra Marwah & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2216; J.C. Yadav Vrs. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 857; and Ashok Kumar Uppal & Ors. Vrs. State of J & K & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2812)."
9.10. In Bhabendra Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 720, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows:
"***
84. So far as the second prayer, it has been contended by them that the NCTE notification provides provision to provide opportunity to such candidates having graduation and 2-years diploma in elementary education by whatever name known, but in complete violation of the same this category of candidates have been deprived from consideration of their candidature.
***
91. It is not in dispute that the students require uniform standard of teaching in all the faculties i.e. arts, science or commerce. Admittedly for Classes-I to V the subject having science background is less excepting the reading of mathematic, etc., but now we are living in the era W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 63 of 83 where even the mathematics is being taught from Class-I in ICSE course or in the CBSE course.
92. Here, in the instant case, the State Government is concerned with the education to be imparted to such category of candidates through its own Board known as Secondary Board having 10+2 syllabus side by side the courses being run by Central Board of Secondary Education (in short CBSE) Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (in short ICSE) are also going on, hence the requirement of the day is that the children studying in the State Secondary Board is to compete with the students studying with CBSE course or ICSE course.
93. In this predicament it is the State Government who is the best to judge the persons to be inducted in the service of teachers to strengthen the foundation of the children of Category-I which imparts studies to class-I to class-V candidates. If this fact would be taken into consideration, as has been argued orally by the learned Advocate General, the justification shown by learned Advocate General that since the quota of fixing vacancy is not available in the NCTE notification, as such the State Government is the best judge to earmark the vacancies to be filled up from amongst the science or Arts or Commerce category, according to him, keeping the larger interest of the children which is the sole aim of enacting the RTE Act, 2009, the State has taken a conscious decision to earmark 60% of vacancies to be filled up from Science W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 64 of 83 background teacher to impart teaching from Class-
I to Class-V.
94. In that view of the matter, according to the considered view of this court, the reasoning given by the learned Advocate General seems to be just and proper and it does not seem to suffer from the vice of malice or the arbitrariness.
95. Since it has not been provided under the statute earmarking the quota of Science or Arts or Commerce background, rather it depends upon the need and exigency, the Government in future can also take decision of reducing this percentage of quota as has been submitted by learned Advocate General. This also led this Court to come to the conclusion that the State action cannot be said to be unreasonable.
96. Overall providing any qualification fixing any quota of engagement of a category of employee since is the policy decision of the State Government, unless arbitrary, the scope of judicial review is very limited that too when no specific criteria has been fixed in this regard under the statute.
97. In that view of the matter, according to the conscious view of this Court, showing interference in any manner in this regard by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will only lead to interference with the scope of the State Government in making out the policy W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 65 of 83 decision which is for the larger interest of the pupil.
98. In that view of the matter, this Court restrains itself to exercise the power of judicial review as has been prayed by the petitioners, accordingly this prayer of the petitioners is declined to be interfered with.
99. So far as the second prayer regarding omission of consideration of candidature of B.A./B.Sc. and 2- years Diploma in Elementary Education by whatever name known, in the State of Odisha it is known as certification on training is concerned, this Court is not in agreement with the reasoning given by the State through the learned Advocate General rather reiterating the view which has been taken by this Court while deciding the issue raised in the writ petitions referred as Category-II above, is of the considered view that the State is supposed to act strictly in pursuance to the legislation."
9.11. In Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vrs.
Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 7 SCR 94, it is held as follows:
"10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 66 of 83 conditions of eligibility, much less, can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law, the matter has to go back to the appointing authority, after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case, can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
***
15. The view taken by the Tribunal finds approval in Secretary (Health), Department of Health & F.W. and Another Vrs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 282, observing as follows:
„7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that preference should be given for higher dental qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 67 of 83 the post and Respondent 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. *** In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed.‟ ***"
9.12. With the above conspectus of legal position as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India as W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 68 of 83 well as this Court, and having had the opportunity to have glance at "the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022", which came into force with effect from 09.01.2023 vide General Administration and Public Grievance Department Notification No.742-GAD-FE-OSSC-0012/2022/Gen, dated 07.01.2023, published in Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.87, dated 09.01.2023, it is in Rule 3 ibid., which deals with "Direct Recruitment", provided that "Appointment to Services or Posts mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule-I which are required to be filled up by direct recruitment as per the provisions under the relevant recruitment Rules or Resolutions as mentioned in column (3) thereof, shall notwithstanding anything contrary in such Rules or Regulations, be made in order of merit from out of the candidates recommended by the Commission: provided that the Government may include any Service or Posts in Schedule-I for regulating direct recruitment to that Service or Posts or exclude any Service or Posts from the Schedule-I by notification in the Odisha Gazette".
9.13. Whereas Rule 4 of said Rules, 2022 prescribes "Eligibility criteria for appointment", Rule 5 specifies "Holding of Examination". Further, Rule 8 thereof W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 69 of 83 provides for "Overriding effect" by laying down that "These Rules shall have overriding effect on all the recruitment Rules or Resolutions or executive instructions or orders issued by the Administrative Departments governing the method of recruitment as mentioned in column (3) of Schedule-I".
9.14. Schedule-I insofar as it relates to "SCEW", following fact appears:
Sl. Name of the Recruitment Rules or Resolution or No. post/department Executive Instruction * * * (4) Soil Conservation There are no recruitment rules for the post.
Extension Worker The syllabus and the pattern of the under the Directorate examination has not been prescribed. Hence, of Soil Conservation Odisha Staff Selection Commission shall and Watershed decide the syllabus and pattern of Development examination in consultation with the concerned Departments of HoDs by invoking the Rule 13 of the OSSC Rules, 1993 and its subsequent amendments till date.
* * * 9.15. Schedule-II appended to Rule 6 of said Rules, 2022 prescribes syllabus of Preliminary Written Examination and Main Written Examination which includes "technical paper". Syllabus for Technical Paper for services inter alia SCEW would have to be decided by the Commission in consultation with the Appointing Authority or Cadre Controlling Authority. It also specifies that "if more than one Appointing Authority are involved, syllabus will be decided by the Commission in consultation with Cadre Controlling W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 70 of 83 Authority. Commission may decide to have a common Technical Paper for more than one services or posts. Commission can update or revise the syllabus of Technical Paper in consultation with the Appointing Authority or Cadre Controlling Authority from time to time."
9.16. It is transpired from perusal of Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure-12) that it is stipulated therein at Clause (a) of Paragraph 1 that "Appointment shall be guided by Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts/Services Rules, 2022". Further scrutiny would reveal that the applications are invited online through the OSSC for recruitment to fill up vacancies in different offices under the said Rules for various departments of the Government of Odisha. Amongst others, it is revealed that 245 numbers of vacant posts in SCEW in Group-C category under the Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development are required to be filled up. Paragraph 3 of said Advertisement specified in addition to general criteria of eligibility, it published requisite educational qualifications as eligibility for different posts. Under the heading "Educational Qualification" in the said Paragraph 3, in respect of SCEW, it required the candidates to have "+2 Science or +2 Vocational W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 71 of 83 Course in Agriculture related subject, i.e., Crop Production (CP)/Horticulture/Repair and Maintenance of Power Driven Farm Machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognised Board/Council or Institution" as "Essential Educational Qualification". The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit made it manifest that since the petitioners have +2 Science as educational qualification besides having Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic Course, they are not restrained from participating in the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-B and Group-C Specialist Posts/Services under various Departments of Government of Odisha (Annexure-12).
9.17. As it appears from the counter affidavit of the opposite party No.4, the OSSC, on the basis of requisition received it published Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 for recruitment to the post of "Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-B/Group-C Specialists Posts/Services under various Departments, Government of Odisha" in which SCEW is one of the posts for recruitment. It transpires from the counter affidavit of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that, the qualification required to acquire Diploma in Agro- Polytechnic +2 Science background is essential. The W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 72 of 83 candidates holding Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic Course are, therefore, supposed to have +2 Science qualification. Thus, they are eligible to apply for the post of SCEW and thereby they are not prohibited or restricted to take part in the recruitment process for such posts. Nevertheless, the petitioners have claimed for preferential treatment to the post of SCEW, which in the considered view of this Court is unwarranted as the scope to tinker with the policy of the Government based on expert opinion is feeble.
9.18. As the OSSC has prepared syllabus in consonance with the prescriptions contained in the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, and completed the process of examination by holding Preliminary Examination, Main Written Examination and completed the process of verification of certificates of the selected candidates in terms of Advertisement dated 13.06.2023, at this stage there is no point in keeping the issue of appointment letters on hold. At the stage of hearing it has been submitted by Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate appearing for the OSSC that the selection process qua posts advertised in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 has been concluded and letters are issued to the Government recommending the names of the selected candidates. Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate for the W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 73 of 83 intervener-petitioners affirmed that the selected candidates having already appeared for certificate verification, in view of propositions laid down in Roshan Kumar Baral Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.1365 of 2022, vide Judgment dated 30.10.2024, the policy decision of the State Government does not warrant to be brushed aside by this Court. This Court, therefore, appreciating aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the opposite parties and intervener- petitioners, takes note of submission of Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A. No.5187 of 2024 with a prayer to modify the interim order passed on 20.07.2023. It is stated that because this Court restrained to fill up 75 posts (petitioners herein) in the category of SCEW, the opposite parties could not issue appointment letters to the successful candidates in order to fill up vacant posts as advertised.
9.19. Under the aforesaid premises, examining the real issue, it appears the petitioners have come up before this Court with the grievance reflected at paragraph 10 of the writ petition to the effect that, "Though the State of Odisha has provided employment opportunity for selection of successful candidates of every academic curriculum, yet it is causing discrimination in the matter of employment to the two-
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 74 of 83years Diploma in Agro- Polytechnic pass out candidates by not providing any opportunity of employment either in Group-C or in Group-B category of posts from the Academic Session of the year 2012-13 till date. Further, as the Advertisement vide Annexure-12 is passed hastily during the period when the Committee members are in session of the matter to take a decision, for approval of the State Government, the same is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and is in respect liable to be quashed, of the recruitment for the post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker, Group-C."
9.20. As has already been observed that in consonance with the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, the examination was conducted and concluded by granting opportunity of employment to the candidates including the petitioners who are in possession of +2 qualification with "Science" and the petitioners were not restrained/ restricted/prohibited from participating in the "Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-B/Group-C Specialists Posts/Services under various Departments, Government of Odisha", the contention of the petitioners have no foundation to allege State action unfair to bring it into the fold of vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As such the claim of the petitioners is rejected for failure miserably to establish W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 75 of 83 discrimination. However, so far as preferential treatment is concerned, it is the domain of the State Government for consideration as a matter of policy. Various jobs enumerated in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 reveals the fact that candidature for different posts required different special educational qualification. Therefore, seeking to challenge the withdrawal of Order constituting Committee by the petitioners (vide I.A. No.6602 of 2024) has no bearing on the issue at hand, inasmuch as no challenge has been laid by the petitioners with regard to power conferred on the opposite parties by virtue of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, which is framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and "in supersession of any Rules or Regulation or Orders or Instructions issued".
10. The aforesaid discussion now takes this Court consider whether the petitioners can ventilate their grievance before the authority concerned.
10.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for preferential treatment is left to the decision to be taken by the employer. It needs to be mentioned that Rule 9 of the W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 76 of 83 Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, spells out that, "When it is considered by the Government, that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of persons".
10.2. Regard may be had to Ashok Kumar Uppal Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1998) 1 SCR 164 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to indicate the possibility of relaxation of rules framed by the Government in the following terms:
"26. Power to relax the Recruitment Rules or any other Rule made by the State Government, under Article 309 of the Constitution of which the corresponding provision is contained in Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is conferred upon the Government to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or is likely to be caused to any individual employee or class of employees or where the working of the Rule might have become impossible. Under service jurisprudence as also the Administrative Law, such a power has necessarily to be conceded to the employer particularly the State Government or the Central Government who have to deal with the hundreds of employees working under them in different departments W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 77 of 83 including the Central or the State Secretariat.
27. In State of Maharashtra Vrs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 = (1989) 1SCR 947 = (1989) Supp.1 SCC 393, it was held as under:
„The power to relax the conditions of the Rules to avoid undue hardship in any case or class of cases cannot now be gainsaid. It would be, therefore; futile for the respondents to make any grievance.‟
28. In JC. Yadav and others Vrs. State of Haryana and others, (1990) 2 SCC 189, it was held as under:
„The relaxation of the rules may be to the extent the State Government may consider necessary for dealing with a particular situation in a just and equitable manner. The scope of Rule is wide enough to confer power on the State Government to relax the requirement of Rules in respect of an individual or class of individuals to the extent it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The power of relaxation is generally contained in the Rules with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to meet a particular situation. Many a time strict application of service rules create a situation where a particular individual or a set of individuals may suffer undue hardship and further there may be a situation where requisite qualified persons may not be W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 78 of 83 available for appointment to the service. In such a situation the Government has power to relax requirement of Rules. The State Government may in exercise of its powers issue a general order relaxing any particular Rule with a view to avail the services of requisite officers. The relaxation even if granted in a general manner would ensure to the benefit of individual officers.‟
29. This decision was followed in Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vrs. State of Punjab and others, (1997) 10 SCC 298. In which Hon‟ble Punchhi, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed as under:
„The power of relaxation even if generally included in the Service Rules could either be for the purpose of mitigating hardships or to meet special and deserving situations. Such Rule must be construed liberally, according to the learned Judges. Of course arbitrary exercise of such power must be guarded against. But a narrow construction is likely to deny benefit to the really deserving cases. We too are of the view that the rule of relaxation must get a pragmatic construction so as to achieve effective implementation of a good policy of the Government.‟
30. In view of the above, the Government can exercise the power to relax the Rules in all those cases in which hardship is caused in the implementation of those Rules to meet a particular situation or where injustice has been caused to either individual employee or class of employees. Of course, this W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 79 of 83 power cannot be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily to give undue advantage or favour to an individual employee."
10.3. In the light of the above exposition of legal perspective as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Rule 9 of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, may be invoked on the petitioners, being reserved liberty to apprise the appropriate Government/authority to establish their claim for the relief sought for.
Conclusion:
11. Having considered the case of the petitioners in every respect and aspect and also taking into account the fact of conceded position that the petitioners having +2 Science qualification with Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic Course are eligible to appear and compete with other candidates in respect of post of "Soil Conservation Extension Worker", this Court finds no sufficient and plausible ground or justiciable reason to countenance the claim for preferential treatment inasmuch as the examination is a "Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group- B/Group-C Specialists Posts/Services under various Departments, Government of Odisha".
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 80 of 8311.1. The eligibility criteria with respect to qualification of candidates being specified in terms of Schedule-I and Schedule-II appended to the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022 for appointment to the post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker are well within the domain of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission/State Government and in tune with the requirement of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for such post. The employer is normally considered to be the best judge to prescribe qualification for a particular post/service or job description. The appointing authority is primarily responsible to select the syllabus and qualification for a specified assignment. The need of specific qualification for particular description of job is the domain of the appointing authority. It is the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of any Rules or Regulation or Orders or Instructions issued, conferred the authority on the opposite parties including the OSSC to prescribe qualifications for W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 81 of 83 eligibility to the post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker and manner thereof.
11.2. This Court, thus, cannot sit in the place of the appointing authority to prescribe the conditions of eligibility by resorting to power of judicial review and provide such qualification or subrogate the eligibility condition(s) in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure-12). Nothing is cited by the petitioners to demonstrate that the eligibility criteria or the qualifications specified for the post "Soil Conservation Extension Worker" is contrary to delineated authority conferred under the Combined Rules, 2022. Such question clearly falls outside the purview of judicial review and in case of any doubt with respect to the language of the advertisement, one has to fall back upon the appointing authority to take a decision in accordance with law but under no circumstances, the Court exercising the powers of judicial review can supplement or supplant the eligibility conditions contained in the advertisement.
11.3. Having found that the conduct of Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-„C‟ Specialist Posts/Services under various Departments, Government of Odisha being undertaken by the OSCC W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 82 of 83 in consonance with requirement of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022, no infirmity is perceived. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of said Combined Rules, 2022 and the eligibility criteria prescribed thereunder.
12. Ergo, finding no merit, in view of the above discussions and reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stand dismissed and the interim order passed on 20.07.2023 and orders passed extending said interim order from time to time are hereby vacated. All interlocutory applications pending are disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Digitally Signed The 6th December, 2024//MRS/Laxmikant/Suchitra Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Dec-2024 13:38:06 W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 83 of 83