Ranjit Rout & Ors vs Opsc & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties on 24 September, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Ranjit Rout & Ors vs Opsc & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties on 24 September, 2021

Bench: B.R. Sarangi

                                 1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                  W.P.(C) No.29402 OF 2021

Ranjit Rout & Ors                      .....                 Petitioners

                                             Mr. S.K. Behera, Advocate
                               Vs.
OPSC & Ors.                            .....           Opposite parties

                                                  Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                       ORDER

24.09.2021 W.P.(C) No.29402 of 2021 And I.A. No.13564 of 2021 Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to waive 2 years practice experience criteria under column 4(b) of the Advertisement No.08 of 2020-21 by keeping intact the conditions of Advertisement No.12 of 2016-17 as it is backlog posts from that Advertisement at Annexure-1 and 2 by issuing corrigendum and consequentially, they claim relaxation of upper age limit specifying the eligibility as on 01.01.2018 instead of 01.01.2021 as no recruitment was made during 2018 to 2020.

4. Mr. S.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate his contentions, has relied 2 upon State of Odisha V. Sudipta Ku. Mohanty, 2017(II) ILR-CUT-549, wherein the State had taken a stand before the Tribunal that since the Government has come out with new Rule w.e.f. 06.04.2010 and the advertisement has come on 06.10.2012, as such the vacancies are to be filled up in pursuance to the new Rule having come into effect wherein there is no provision like that of the second proviso of the Rule 2 of the Rules, 1989, the Tribunal, after negating the plea of the State and taking into consideration the definition of 'year' as defined under the recruitment rule and second proviso to Rules, 1989 and also considering the fact that in between 1997 to 2010 there was no vacancy having been advertised by the State authorities for fulfilling the post of Jr. Assistants/Sr. Assistants which subsequently merged to the post of Asst. Section Officers, passed an order directing the authorities to allow the applicants to participate in the examination pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.10.2012.

5. Since this Court has upheld the direction given by the Tribunal, the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed.

6. Issue notice.

7. Two extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel within three days, as he appears for opposite parties no.2 and 3 to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

8. Requisites for issuance of notice to opposite 3 party no.1 by speed post shall be filed within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite parties fixing a short returnable date.

9. As an interim measure, it is directed that any action taken pursuant to advertisement issued shall abide by the result of the writ petition.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court