Orissa High Court
Deepak Kumar Padhi & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 26 May, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025
Deepak Kumar Padhi & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. S.Palit, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Adv. General
Mr. Saurav Tibrewal, Advocate for Intervener
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for Intervener
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
W.P.(C) No.12114 of 2025
Rakesh Ranjan Kar & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. M.K.Mishra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Adv. General
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
W.P.(C) No.12865 of 2025
Subrat Kumar Padhy ..... Petitioner
Ms. P.Rath, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Odisha Public Service
Commission Represented
through Chairman & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
Page 1 of 41
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 | Date of Order: 26.05.2025
______________________________________________________
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
I.A. No.7976 of 2025 & I.A. No.8156 of 2025
1. Since both the above noted interim applications have been filed by two different sets of candidates seeking intervention in the present writ application, both the aforesaid applications are taken up together for consideration and for passing necessary consequential order.
2. Before considering the interim applications and adjudicating the rights of the intervenors to participate in the hearing and to put forth their views vis-à-vis the views of the petitioners in the present writ application, it is pertinent to throw light on the prayer made in the writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 and a batch of connected other writ applications. The above batch of writ applications have been filed by a set of candidates with a prayer to quash the 5 th corrigendum to advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 issued vide notice No.2361/PSC dated 11.04.2025, by the Opposite Party No.3-OPSC, under Annexure-4, and for a further direction to Page 2 of 41 the Opposite Party No.3 to the extent that the date fixed in the notice dated 11.04.2025 as the last date for submission of online application form for selection and recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil and Mechanical) in conformity with Para 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 and a batch of similar other writ applications and thereby provide an opportunity to the petitioners to appear in GATE exam for the year 2025-26.
3. I.A. No.7976 of 2025 has been filed by some of the candidates who participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement. The intervenor- petitioners have primarily approached this Court by filing the above noted I.A. opposing the prayer of the writ petitioners on the ground that the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 has been issued by the OPSC in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024. The present intervenors basically support the changes made by the OPSC pursuant to the judgment of this Court in its corrigendum dated 11.04.2025. In such view of the matter, learned senior counsel representing the intervenor-petitioners contended that the intervenor-petitioners are necessary parties to the present writ application and as such the present writ Page 3 of 41 application cannot be adjudicated in their absence. Moreover, it was also contended that any final decision taken by this Court in the present writ application with regard to corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is likely to affect the interest of the intervenor-petitioners. As such, it was argued that the intervention application be allowed and the intervenors be added as Opposite Parties to the writ applications.
4. Similarly, another set up interveners-petitioners have approached this Court by filing I.A. No.8156 of 2025. The present intervenor-petitioners are those candidates who are complying with the GATE requirement as per the advertisement and, accordingly, have appeared in the interview. The grievance of the intervenor-petitioners in the abovenoted I.A. application is that although they are confident of qualifying the recruitment test successfully, however, due to the prolongation of the present litigation their final results have not been published and as such they are seriously prejudiced. This set of intervenors have also prayed for vacation of the interim order passed earlier by this Court. In such view of the matter, the learned senior counsel representing this set up intervenor-petitioners argued that the petitioners are necessary parties to the present writ Page 4 of 41 application and in their absence the lis cannot be adjudicated effectively. As such, it was prayed that the intervention application be allowed and the intervenor-petitioners be provided an opportunity to participate in the hearing of the present writ application as well as to have their say in the matter of vacation of interim order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the maintainability of the interventions petitions at the outset. However, subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that he will have no objection in the event the intervention applications are allowed to the extent that the intervenors be permitted to either support or oppose the prayer made in the writ application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the intervention applications, and on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed thereto, this Court prima facie observes that any final order which is likely to be passed while disposing of the writ application is definitely going to affect the interest of the intervenor-petitioners. Moreover, the writ petitioners and the intervenor-petitioners have participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the Page 5 of 41 self-same advertisement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that any final order passed in the present writ applications is likely to affect all candidates who have either participated in or are going to participate in view of the judgment of the Division Bench as well as the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the intervenor-petitioners are necessary parties to the present writ applications. Accordingly, the intervention applications are allowed. The intervenor-petitioners be added as Opposite Parties to the above noted writ applications.
7. Accordingly, I.As. stand allowed.
I.A. No.6933 of 2025
8. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 have filed this I.A. with a specific prayer for stay of operation of 5 th corrigendum to advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 issued vide notice dated 11.04.2025 by the Opposite Party No.3-OPSC, under Annexure-4, till the disposal of the above noted writ applications.
9. Before adjudicating the interim application on its own merit, it is imperative to highlight the factual background of the present writ application. On 21.12.2012 the Govt. of Odisha framed the "Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Page 6 of 41 Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012" for regulating the appointment to Engineering service in the State. Later on, sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2012 were amended vide amendment Rules, 2014 on 31.10.2014 thereby providing 90% weightage to objective type written test and 10% weightage to viva-voce test by the OPSC.
10. While this was the position, on 28.01.2021 the above noted Rules of the year 2012 was once again amended vide amendment Rules, 2021. Accordingly, sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 was suitably amended to select candidates on the basis of highest of the valid GATE scores of preceding three years from the date of advertisement. The constitutional validity of the aforesaid amendment Rules, 2021 particularly with regard to the amended sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 were assailed before this Court by some of the candidates by filing W.P.(C) No.15738 of 2022 and a batch of similar other writ petitions. A Division Bench of this Court, vide a common judgment dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.15738 of 2022, was pleased to strike down the "Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment And Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2021".
Page 7 of 41
11. Consequently, the Govt. of Odisha again amended sub- rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 by virtue of "Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2023" thereby creating provision for weightage of 90% from valid GATE score and 10% from viva-voce test to be conducted by the OPSC. Finally, the OPSC published advertisement No.19 dated 28.12.2023 inviting applications from desirous candidates for recruitment to the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Odisha. Similarly, advertisement dated 29.12.2023 was published for recruitment to the post of A.E.E. (Electrical) in the Department of Energy, Govt. of Odisha.
12. While this was the position, the OPSC issued 4th corrigendum to the advertisement vide letter No.961 dated 17.02.2024 adding 348 nos. of posts in the rank of A.E.E. (Civil) to the existing 580 nos. of posts of A.E.E. (Civil). The last date for submission of online application was fixed to 26.02.2024. It must be mentioned here that the process of submitting online application pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.2023 was supposed to commence w.e.f. 12.01.2024. However, by virtue of the second corrigendum Page 8 of 41 dated 12.01.2024 the date of making online application was re-scheduled to 19.01.2024. Thereafter, a third corrigendum to the advertisement dated 28.12.2023 was published by the OPSC indicating therein that the candidates must have a GATE score on the subject. Finally, the last date for making online application was re-fixed to 26.02.2024.
13. W.P.(C) No.10185 and a batch of similar other writ applications were filed by different candidates challenging the vires of Rule 4 of the "OES (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rule, 2023" whereby Rule, 7(3) and 7(4) of the Rule, 2012 were amended and modified and a further prayer was also made in the batch of writ applications to quash the advertisement dated 28.12.2023. Likewise, W.A. No.948 of 2023 was filed challenging the interim order dated 17.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.596 of 2024 and a batch of writ applications. Since both W.P.(C) No.10185 and W.A. No.948 of 2023 are based on identical set of facts and the very same advertisement, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court took up both the matters together for final hearing and disposal thereof.
Page 9 of 41
14. The Hon'ble Division Bench after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10185 as well as the counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties in the said writ application was pleased to dismiss the writ application challenging the vires of the Amendment Rules, 2023. However, while doing so the Hon'ble Division Bench has given indulgence to the candidates who were otherwise eligible as on the last date of making such application but who could not get an opportunity to participate in the GATE examination and submit their valid score. Keeping in view the spirit of the judgment by the Hon'ble Division Bench declaring the Amendment Rules, 2021 ultra vires, the subsequent Division Bench while accepting the validity of incorporation of GATE score as an eligibility criteria thought it proper to extend the last date for making application to accommodate such candidates who could not participate in the GATE examination as they did not get any opportunity to appear in such GATE examination after the Rule was amended in the year 2023.
15. It appears that pursuant to the common judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 as well as W.A. No.948 of 2023 directing extension of the last date for Page 10 of 41 making an application, the OPSC came forward with 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 to the advertisement dated 28.12.2023. The fifth corrigendum was issued permitting the candidates, who have already submitted their application, to upload the enhanced/upgraded GATE score if they have got any upgraded or enhanced valid GATE score. Challenging the aforesaid 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025, the Petitioners have approached this Court once again by filing the present writ application.
16. Along with W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 and a batch of similar other writ applications, the Petitioners have also filed interim applications with a prayer to stay operation of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 under Annexure-4 to W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025.
17. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as well as learned senior counsels representing the intervenor-petitioners who have already been added as Opposite Parties to the writ application by virtue of the preceding order, learned Advocate General for the State- Opposite Parties and Mr. Arnab Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Odisha Public Service Commission. Perused the written note of submission filed by the respective Page 11 of 41 counsels. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 at the outset contended that the primary issue that falls for consideration before this Court in the present writ application is as to whether the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 and a batch of similar writ applications applies to the present petitioner? And, as to whether the Petitioners can be allowed to apply and appear in the GATE 2026 examination and submit their scores to OPSC for consideration of their candidature in the recruitment process to the post of A.E.E pursuant to advertisement No.19 of 2023-24? He has also questioned the validity of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and not in conformity with Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025. He further contended that keeping in view the observation of the Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025, the petitioners be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate in the GATE examination by extending the last date for making online application pursuant Page 12 of 41 to advertisement No.19 dated 28.12.2023 for the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical).
18. In course of his argument, Mr. Palit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the judgment dated 15.01.2025 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 acts as a springboard to recognize the rights of the candidates who did not get a chance to apply, appear and submit their valid GATE score to OPSC and, as such, they were deprived of the opportunity to participate in the recruitment process even though they were having valid engineering degree. Further, drawing attention of this Court to judgment dated 15.01.2025 of the Hon'ble Division Bench, he further submitted that such judgment has cast a wide net to incorporate candidates from a larger group. Moreover, the principle basing upon which the Hon'ble division Bench directed to extend the last date of making online application is based on the doctrine of level playing field and the principle of providing equal opportunity to the candidates who have the eligibility and would become over- aged to participate in any further advertisement likely to be published in the subsequent years. Thus, it was argued that the intention of the Division Bench was to provide at least Page 13 of 41 one opportunity to the candidates who have not appeared in the GATE examination at all and to submit their score before the OPSC and to participate in the recruitment process. Therefore, the direction of the Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of the judgment, which is in furtherance of the fundamental rights of the candidates as guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India, has not been followed in its letter and spirit by publishing the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further argue that all the petitioners were over 33 years of age as of 24.08.2024, which is the starting date for GATE, 2025 applications. Since the GATE, 2025 examination was scheduled to be held on February, 2025 and the result was to be declared in March, 2025, the petitioners could not have presumed or anticipated that they would have an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process based on GATE 2025 score. Therefore, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that it was only after the judgment dated 15.01.2025 was pronounced by the Hon'ble Division Bench that they were given a level playing field to participate in the recruitment process which had already closed on 26.02.2024. Page 14 of 41
20. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner laid a lot of emphasis on Para-33 & 36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 by the Hon'ble division bench in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024. For better understanding of the claim made by the present petitioner, this Court feels it proper to extract Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 herein- below:-
"33. We are therefore inclined to interfere with the advertisement only to the extent of extending the last date of application for the reason that the 2023 Amendment Rules were published on 28.09.2023 and the Advertisement No. 19 of 2023/24 was published exactly three months later i.e , on 28.12.2023. Therefore hardly any time has been provided to an otherwise eligible candidate who had not appeared for GATE earlier, to apply for and appear in the GATE test and obtain his / her score, so as to apply for selection before the last date. It is true that the last date of application has been extended by subsequent corrigendum but these do not provide the necessary opportunity to a candidate who had not appeared in the GATE examinations within the last three years, to apply for appearing m GATE after the 2023 amendment on 28.09.2023 of the 2012 Rules and appear in the GATE examinations, so as to become eligible to apply for selection / recruitment. We have decided to do so instead of quashing the advertisement keeping in mind:- i) the submission on behalf of the State of Odisha that a number of posts are lying vacant for which developmental work has been affected on account of non-recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers ii) the submission that candidates who had a valid score and being eligible had applied for the posts; and iii) the candidates who have not Page 15 of 41 appeared in GATE but have been waiting since long to apply for the posts and may become over age in case a new advertisement is published. We accordingly direct the OPSC to extend the last date of application, so that eligible candidates who have not appeared in the GATE examination in the last three years, get an opportunity to appear in the examination at least once, obtain their scores and submit their applications.
36. After having held thus, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we deem it just and equitable to direct that the last date - 12.01.2024 indicated in Advertisement No.19 of 2023 / 24 dated 28.12.2023 published by the OPSC for submission of examinations (which has been extended subsequently) shall be further extended by a suitable date so as to give an opportunity to the candidates who were otherwise eligible (on account of their age and educational qualification) as on the last date for applications as fixed by the State Government / OPSC, to appear in the GATE examination at least once and submit their applications along with their valid GATE score if any, The applications of candidates, but had earlier appeared in GATE examination (and were otherwise eligible (on account of their age and educational qualification) as on the last date for applications as fixed by the State Government / OPSC shall also be considered. But the candidates who had not acquired the necessary educational qualifications or were under age by the last date earlier fixed by the State Government / OPSC will not be eligible to apply. This is to prevent prejudice to the candidates who were otherwise eligible (due to their educational qualifications and age) on the last date fixed by the State Government / OPSC. The applicants who were eligible as per the terms of the advertisement and had applied pursuant to such advertisement and whose applications have been processed in compliance of the interim order dated 17.03.2024 passed in WP (C) No.42059 of 2023 and batch, need not apply again."Page 16 of 41
21. With reference to the observation made in Para- 33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, also argued that the finding and reasoning of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above noted paragraphs recognize and provide an opportunity to the candidates, like the petitioners who did not get a single chance after delivery of judgment dated 15.01.2025 to appear in the GATE examination and to submit a valid GATE score. He further contended that the rights of the petitioners. who got profited by judgment dated 15.01.2025, was saved only to the limited extent of the scope provided vide advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 and by way of the extension of the last date of making online application. Moreover, the opportunity provided under Para-33 & 36 of the judgment is limited to the extent of only providing a chance to the petitioners to participate in the GATE examination and to submit their candidature for recruitment to the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical).
22. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the only opportunity that is available to the petitioners after the judgment of the Division Bench was pronounced on 15.01.2015 is by Page 17 of 41 making application in September-October, 2025 to appear in GATE, 2026. He further contended that in view of the amendment to Odisha Civil Service(Fixation of Upper Age Limit), 1989, whereby relaxing of upper age limit up to 38 years was available up to December, 2024, the Petitioners, after December, 2024 should be ineligible for applying for the post of under the Odisha Govt. Thus, the advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 was saved by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.01.2025. Since all the petitioners are more than 33 years, for them the advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 is a last opportunity to apply for any job under the Govt. of Odisha by virtue of the amendment to the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989. He further contended that unless the petitioners are protected by a suitable interim order, not only the writ petition would become infructuous, but also their only hope to enter into Govt. service would come to an end. At this juncture learned senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that allowing use of GATE 2026 score could not cause any prejudice to any of the candidates who had already obtained a valid GATE score, as such candidates are Page 18 of 41 already protected by the judgment of the Division Bench and in view of the observation made in the Para-36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025.
I.A. No. 7708 of 2025
23. Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12865 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.7708 of 2025 at the outset contended that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ applications with a prayer to quash clause 5 of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 at Annexure-6 to the writ application and further to direct the Opposite Parties not to change the eligibility criteria or conditions of the recruitment process except as directed in the judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 by the Hon'ble division bench or, in the alternative, to allow the petitioners a chance to obtain upgraded/enhanced GATE score by participating in the subsequent GATE examination. Along with writ applications, such petitioners have also filed an I.A. bearing I.A. No.7708 of 2025 to stay the recruitment process till dismissal of the present writ application.
Page 19 of 41
24. While elaborating the issues involved in the present writ application, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the core issue which is required to be adjudicated in the present writ application is as to whether the judgment dated 15.01.2025 envisaged the issue of up-gradation/enhancement of GATE score for those who are already short-listed for interview in July, 2024 on the basis of the valid GATE score? She further contended that to answer the aforesaid issue this Court is required to identify as to who were the petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners before the Division Bench were a set of candidates who were eligible as per the age and educational qualification but did not have a valid GATE score as required under the amended Rules and the subsequent advertisement. Further, referring to the Para-33 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025, she further contended that Hon'ble Division Bench has held that such candidates should be given at least one chance to appear in the GATE examination so as to obtain a valid GATE score which would enable them to participate in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement No.19. It was also held that many Page 20 of 41 prospective candidates could not have applied due to time between the introduction of the new rules and the advertisement. Thus, it was emphatically contended that the list before the Hon'ble Division Bench was confined to the prayer of the candidates who did not get any opportunity to obtain a valid GATE score. In the aforesaid context, she further argued that the Division Bench in its observation made in Para-33 did not speak of any enhancement/up-gradation of the GATE score of the candidates who have already appeared in interview in terms of their GATE score as on 26.02.2024.
25. In course of her argument she also referred to Para-36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 to impress upon this Court that the Hon'ble Division Bench directed that the last date should be extended to a suitable date thereby providing an opportunity to the candidates who have not appeared in any GATE examination and as such have not been able to obtain a valid GATE score after the rule was amended and the advertisement was published in the year 2023. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-36 further clarified the window had closed for those candidates who had a valid GATE score and had already appeared in the Page 21 of 41 interview by giving a specific observation to the extent that the inclusion of non-GATE people to obtain a valid GATE score could not take away or scrap the selection process that has already taken place. Thus, it was argued that the candidates who had valid GATE score and had participated in the recruitment process were protected by the order of the Division Bench and they were required to do nothing extra. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the provision for enhancement/up-gradation of valid GATE score of the already eligible candidates in terms of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is beyond the scope and purview of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 as no such direction was given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its final judgment dated 15.01.2025. Thus, the aforesaid part of the corrigendum can in no way be related to the observation of the Hon'ble division bench in Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025.
26. Furthermore, while drawing attention of this Court to Para-36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 and laying emphasis on the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench to the effect that inclusion of non-GATE people to Page 22 of 41 obtain a valid GATE score could not take away or scrap the selection process that has already taken place, contended that the selection process in respect of candidates other than the non-GATE candidates had attained finality. Thus, the Hon'ble Division Bench has demonstrably exempted and has kept such candidates in a separate category and the selection process in respect of such candidates has been protected and, as such, it has attained finality by the stage at which the non-GATE candidates approached this Court by filing the earlier writ application.
27. Moreover, the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 speaks about or permits the candidates who are already having valid GATE score to upgrade/enhance their existing valid GATE score at the time the advertisement was protected till submission of the online application form. In course of her argument she also countered the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the intervenors as well as the State-Opposite Party and the OPSC to the extent that Para-32 of the judgment by the Hon'ble division bench permits such enhancement/up- Page 23 of 41 gradation of the valid GATE score. In the said context, she further contended that Para-32 makes it clear that it only clarifies validity of the GATE score as a method of selection. Rather, at Para-32 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025, the Hon'ble Division Bench justified that the advertisement cannot be quashed just because GATE score has been introduced as a method of selection and upheld that GATE score can be a valid method of selection.
28. Further, in reply to the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 and as to whether the same is an outcome of the judgment dated 15.01.2025, and accepting that such 5 th corrigendum is an outcome of the judgment, whether the OPSC can introduce a clause which is beyond what is mentioned in the judgment? The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 in Para-3 itself clarifies that the same is an outcome of judgment dated 15.01.2025. Thus, had the judgment dated 15.01.2025 not existed at all, the OPSC would never have come up with such corrigendum. Therefore, it can squarely be concluded that the corrigendum is an outcome of judgment dated 15.01.2025. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Page 24 of 41 Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the OPSC does not have any power to make in changes the recruitment of condition including allowing the candidates, who did not have valid GATE score, to apply by uploading valid GATE scores by obtaining the same in the subsequent GATE exam. Thus, it was argued that the 5 th corrigendum is required to stand on the platform of the judgment dated 15.01.2025, if the same is to be considered as valid in law. That being the case, no other clause can be introduced by virtue of a corrigendum while the selection process is wrong except by the direction of this Court vide its judgment dated 15.01.2025.
29. In reply to the question as to whether the clause 5 of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is in violation of judgment dated 15.01.2025, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that clause 5 of the 5th corrigendum is an absolutely new condition to the recruitment while the selection process was on, thereby providing an opportunity to the candidates who have already appeared for interview in terms of Annexure-4 to upload their upgraded or enhanced GATE score. Moreover, such a benefit or advantage to a particular class Page 25 of 41 of candidates has not emanated from the judgment dated 15.01.2025. The judgment dated 15.01.2025 is very clear and specific that the relief granted therein was confined to the candidates who were otherwise eligible however, they have failed to obtain the valid GATE score. Thus, the clause 5 of the 5th corrigendum is not protected/saved by judgment dated 15.01.2025 and as such the same can very well be construed to be an action by the OPSC not supported by law. Moreover, since the same is not supported by any legal authority, and it provides benefit to a particular class of candidates resulting in discrimination to other candidates, it cannot be construed that the same is not in conformity with the doctrine of level playing field and no in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
30. With regard to introduction of a new clause in the shape of clause 5 of 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the same is contrary to the settle position of law that rules of the game cannot be changed midway and that introduction of such a condition violates the rules of the recruitment. Moreover, even if a rule permits such changes Page 26 of 41 of recruitment condition, those changes have to be scrutinized in terms of Article 14. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (12) SCR 28. Furthermore, with regard to the scope of this Court as a presiding single judge in subsequent writ applications, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the judgment reported in 2016 SCC online Delhi 4285, contended that in terms of doctrine of stare decisis as a judicial discipline, a single judge bench of one High Court is bound by the decision rendered by a division bench of the same High Court.
31. Per contra, Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor-Opposite Parties at the outset contended for rejection of the interim relief sought for by the petitioner. Mr.Mohapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor-Opposite Parties submitted that they acquired GATE score for the academic sessions 2021-22. Thereafter, they have applied for the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.2023. He further contended that the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid Page 27 of 41 advertisement is already over and the intervenor-Opposite Parties are awaiting publication of final result.
32. In course of his argument, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble division bench in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 and made an attempt to lay emphasis on the specific direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. While analyzing the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench learned Senior Counsel further contended that the reading of the aforesaid judgment as a whole would reveal that the candidates as sparing to appear GATE examination 2024-25, as a result of which was to be published by March, 2025, the Hon'ble High Court directed the OPSC/Government to extend the period of advertisement only to accommodate those candidates/applicants. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the OPSC has come up with the 5th corrigendum thereby extending the last date of submission of online application. In such view of the matter, it was also contended that any extension of the last date for submission of online application to accommodate the candidates who are likely to appear in the GATE examination to be held in February, 2026 would not be in Page 28 of 41 consonance with a direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
33. Sri. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties not only vehemently opposed the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner, he also prayed for vacation of any interim order passed in any of the connected matters which has stalled the recruitment process. While canvasing the grounds of objection on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties, the learned Advocate General referred to and relied upon Para-32, 33 & 36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 (Chitaranjan Ghadei vs. State of Odisha) and a batch of similar other writ applications. He would further argue that while uploading the validity of the amendment Rules, 2023, the Hon'ble division bench had given specific directions to the Opposite Parties. It is pursuant to those directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its common judgment dated 15.01.2025, the Opposite Parties have come up with a corrigendum which is strictly in consonance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
Page 29 of 41
34. In their written note of submission the State- Opposite Parties have summarized the challenge by the petitioner to the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 into two broader categories. With regard to point No.(a) i.e. fixation of suitable last date of application as 08.05.2025 ignoring the GATE result of 2026 by the OPSC, learned Advocate General for the State-Opposite Parties contended that in Para-36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 a direction has been given to the OPSC to further extend the last date of submission of online application by a suitable date so as to give an opportunity to a candidate who were otherwise eligible but for the GATE score they could not submit their application form. Thus, it was contended that a clear opportunity was granted to such candidates who had not appeared in GATE examination at least once to appear in the GATE examination, 2025 and submit their application form.
35. While further elaborating his stance justifying the fixation of the last date i.e. 08.05.2025, the learned Advocate General contended that although the advertisement was published on 28.12.2023 and thereafter the judgment dated 15.01.2025 having been pronounced Page 30 of 41 by the Hon'ble Division Bench, a clear opportunity was provided to the candidates who had never appeared in GATE examination by permitting them to appear in GATE, 2025. For GATE, 2025 examination the application forms were floated way back in September/October, 2024 and the examination was held in February, 2025 and the final result was published in March, 2025. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned Advocate General submitted that the GATE examination 2025 which took place in February, 2025 occurred after the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 15.01.2025. Thus, a clear opportunity as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench was given to the candidates who had not appeared in GATE examination at least once.
36. Furthermore, while opposing the prayer for any interim relief to the petitioners, learned Advocate General for the State-Opposite Parties contended that several thousands of posts of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) are lying vacant at the moment. He further submitted that presence of such vacancy positions is alarming and the same is affecting the developmental work in the State of Odisha. Moreover, considering the fact that a large number Page 31 of 41 of engineering graduates have remained unemployed in the State of Odisha, the Govt. of Odisha has taken a conscious decision to fill up the vacant posts of Engineer as expeditiously as possible by following a fair and transparent recruitment procedure.
37. In reply to Point No.(b). He further submitted that in view of the observation made in Para-32 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 to the effect that a candidate may appear every year in GATE examination and improve his/her score which is an option available to the candidate. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the Opposite Party-OPSC has not committed any illegality in coming out with the impugned corrigendum. At this juncture, learned Advocate General further submitted that keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble division bench and the directions given in Para-32 & 36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025, the Opposite Party-OPSC has not only extended the last date of submission of the application form for those candidates who had not appeared in GATE examination at least once, they have also provided an opportunity to the candidates whose applications are valid to Page 32 of 41 upgrade/enhance and to submit their latest GATE score. Thus, it was argued that the conduct of the State-Opposite Parties as well as the OPSC is in conformity with the principle as enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
38. Mr. Arnab Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Odisha Public Service Commission adopted the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties. Additionally, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC contended that the recruitment process was initiated by the OPSC pursuant to the request of the State Government and the same is continuing strictly in terms of Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2023. The constitutional validity of the aforesaid Rules has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide its common judgment dated 15.01.2025. He also reiterated the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General that it is pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench in its common judgment dated 15.01.2025, that the OPSC has issued the impugned corrigendum. He Page 33 of 41 further submitted that in terms of the direction contained in Para-36, the candidates who had not appeared in the GATE at least once have been given an opportunity by extending the last date for submission of online application form. Thus, it was emphatically contended on behalf of the Opposite Parties a reasonable opportunity to appear in the GATE examination had been granted by extending the last date of submission of form. Thus, the OPSC has not committed any illegality on this score.
39. Mr. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC, next emphasized that those candidates who had already submitted their application form and were participating in their recruitment process also appeared in the GATE 2025 examination. In the aforesaid context he further submitted that it would have been unfair to those candidates had they not been given an opportunity to submit their upgraded/enhanced GATE score which was acquired by them by appearing in GATE 2025 examination. Had such opportunity being not granted to such candidates, the same would have caused prejudice to those candidates and in such eventuality, the conduct of the OPSC would have been considered in violation of the Page 34 of 41 principles contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid submission was made in the background fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench had directed that the candidates who are having the GATE score and have already submitted their application by not required to apply again. Therefore, such candidates would have been deprived of an opportunity to submit their enhanced GATE score had the corrigendum issued by the OPSC not given them that opportunity. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the OPSC contended that the OPSC has not committed any illegality in issuing the corrigendum.
40. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, the submissions made by learned senior counsels as well as other counsels representing both sides, further keeping in view the common judgment dated 15.01.2025 rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court prima facie observes that the validity of the corrigendum is to be tested on two counts-
(a) whether the fixation of the last date for submission of application form on 08.05.2025 is just, fair and valid and that the same is in Page 35 of 41 consonance with the direction of the Hon'ble division bench vide its common judgment dated 15.01.2025?
(b) Whether the conduct of the OPSC in granting an opportunity to the candidates who have already submitted their application form to submit their upgraded/enhanced GATE score on the basis of the GATE 2025 examination is valid in law and the same is covered by the common judgment dated 15.01.2025?
41. This Court further observes that the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to provide them an opportunity to appear at least once in the GATE examination pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its common judgment dated 15.01.2025. The case of the petitioner is that although the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-32 & 36 of the judgment have given a clear direction to provide an opportunity to the candidates who have not appeared in GATE examination at least once by extending the last date of submission of application form, the Opposite Parties have fixed the last date as 08.05.2025 thereby the depriving the Page 36 of 41 petitioners to appear in the GATE exam at least once to make themselves eligible to participate in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.2025.
42. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners further contended that the last date for submissions of application to appear in GATE 2025 examination was over by September/October, 2024. In the meantime the common judgment dated 15.01.2025 was delivered by the Division Bench directing the Opposite Parties to give an opportunity to the petitioners. However, the window to appear in GATE 2025 was closed by them. Thus, the petitioners could not take advantage of the relief granted to them by the Hon'ble Division Bench and that effectively no examination of GATE was conducted by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to participate in such examination after judgment dated 15.01.2025 was pronounced by the Hon'ble Division Bench. It was emphatically argued by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners that most of the petitioners would become age-barred in the event they are compelled to appear in the subsequent recruitment process as in the meantime they have all exceeded the upper age Page 37 of 41 limit fixed for entry into the government service and that the relaxation of upper age limit granted by virtue of the notification in the year 2022 could not be applicable to them if they are asked to appear in any recruitment process pursuant to a subsequent advertisement. Thus, it was argued that the present recruitment process is practically the last opportunity for the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical).
43. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties and intervenors on the other hand contended that the next GATE examination is likely to take place in February, 2026. Therefore, the State-Opposite Parties cannot be asked to wait till February, 2026 to fill up the vacancies which are large in number. Moreover, it was also argued that such delay in filling up the post of engineer in the State of Odisha would be against the larger public interest as such vacancies are likely to affect the pace of developmental works that have been carried out in the State of Odisha. It was also argued on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the petitioners could have appeared in GATE 2025 which had taken place after the judgment of Page 38 of 41 the Hon'ble division bench on 15.01.2025. Additionally, it was contended that the petitioners choose not to appear in GATE 2025. Therefore, they cannot blame either the State- Opposite Parties or the OPSC for their failure to appear in GATE 2025. Moreover, giving a long rope to the petitioners in the process of recruitment would cause serious prejudice to the other candidates who are otherwise eligible and have already submitted their application and have undergone the process of recruitment in the meantime.
44. The questions that falls for determination in the present writ application can only be adjudicated after filing of the counter affidavit by the State-Opposite Parties as well as the Odisha Public Service Commission. Further, It also requires interpretation of the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its common judgment dated 15.01.2025 to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners in the present writ application which is to be tested in the light of the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para- 32 & 36 of the common judgment dated 15.01.2025. Keeping in view the additional fact that the present recruitment process would be the last opportunity for the Page 39 of 41 petitioners to apply for any government job as they have already become age-barred in the meantime and the previous rule incorporating certain changes in the recruitment process, i.e. by incorporating the GATE score as a eligibility criteria, and no recruitment process have been taken place for recruitment of A.E.E. in government service for last several years, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners is to be tested with utmost seriousness and sincerity and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 15.01.2025.
45. In view of the aforesaid analysis of this Court, further keeping in view the stands taken by both sides and keeping in view the larger public interest involved in the selection and recruitment of engineers in government service, this Court, while maintaining a balance and while protecting the interest of the petitioners, deems it proper to pass an interim order which would not cause any prejudice to the candidates who are involved in the present batch of writ applications. Accordingly, while directing the Opposite Party-OPSC to continue with the recruitment process for appointment of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, this Page 40 of 41 Court further directs that a post befitting to the qualification of each of the Petitioners in the present batch of writ applications shall not be filled up till the next date. This common order would cover all interim applications that have been filed praying for interim relief, in the connected batch of writ applications.
46. Accordingly, the I.As. stand disposed of. W.P.(C) Nos.12381, 12114 & 12865 of 2025
47. List this matter in the week commencing 7th July, 2025. In the meantime, the Opposite Parties are directed to file their counter affidavit after serving a copy thereof on learned counsels appearing on the State.
48. Rejoinder affidavit if any be filed in the meantime.
49. Considering the urgency of the matter, the parties are directed to cooperate with the Court for an early disposal of the present writ application by completing their respective pleadings in the meantime.
(A.K.Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Page 41 of 41 Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 12:54:38