Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Selection and appointment, if any, made pursuant to the impugned corrigendum are quashed,
(iii) Advertisement issued in respect of the posts exceeding ceiling limit of 50% reservation is bad in law being violative of the principle of reservation and hence quashed.
iv) Action of the OPSC in excluding incorrect questions/ questions out of syllabus for evaluation is also illegal and hence set aside.

3. The sum and substance of facts involved in both the writ petitions are identical, but for convenience and in order to avoid repetition, the facts as described in W.P.(C) No. 8290 of 2016 are delineated in brief as, the petitioners being the AE & JE (Civil) are working in Government of Orissa in Water Resources Department under Minor Irrigation Cadre and Major and Medium Irrigation Cadre. On receipt of requisition from Government of Odisha, on 17.04.2015 Orissa Public Service Commission (In short the "OPSC") published Advertisement No. 03 of 2015-16 for filling up post of Assistant Executive Engineer in both Civil and Mechanical Branch belonging to Housing & Urban Development Department (134 posts), Water Resources Department (291 posts in Civil and 25 posts in Mechanical) and Works Department (232 posts); all total 682(657 in Civil & 25 in Mechanical) posts. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the last date for submission of online application form was fixed to 27.05.2015 by 11.59 P.M. and last date for receipt of print out/ hard copy of online application form was fixed to 12.06.2015 by 5.00 P.M. By the aforesaid advertisement, the detail of vacancies position along with reservation, eligibility criteria, application fees, method of selection and place of examination, other conditions, certificates & documents required to be attached in the form and how to apply etc. were specified and pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioners who were working in Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha had applied for the posts in respect of that Department along with other candidates including O.P. Nos. 4 to 8 as well as OP Nos. 10 & 11 who were added as a parties on their intervention applications in I.A. No. 18287 of 2018 & I.A. No. 3009 of 2020 by order No. 04 dated 14.03.2019 & order No. 06 dated 19.08.2021 respectively passed by this Court (hereinafter the candidates appeared in the recruitment test are referred to as the "applicants"), but subsequently, on 29.05.2015, the OPSC issued two corrigenda to the original Advertisement No. 03 of 2015-16 following the requisition received from Water Resources Department, which issued the requisition consequent upon the amendment to the Rules titled as Orissa Engineering Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (In short "Amendment Rules, 2015"). In the first Corrigendum, the 2nd sub-Para of Para-4 of the Advertisement No. 03 of 2015-16 was substituted by the following sentence:-

10. After having duly considered the rival submissions upon going through the materials placed on record, since there being no factual dispute, this Court considers it appropriate to re-examine the findings of the learned Tribunal by applying the principle of law to the admitted facts of the case. For the purpose of regulating the Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service in Orissa Engineering Service, the Rules, 1941 was prevalent prior to coming in force the 2012 Rules which has been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the aforesaid Rule has been brought into force with effect from 3rd January, 2013, but subsequently, this Rule was amended vide the Amendment Rules, 2015 by incorporating a paragraph to the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules 2012, which is mainly for providing age relaxation up to 45 years and some relaxation in qualification for in service candidates. The Amendment Rules 2015 came into force with effect from 21.05.2015, but by this time, Advertisement No. 03/2015-16 had already been published inviting application for eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(Civil) and Assistant Executive Engineer(Mechanical) in Group 'A' of Orissa Engineering Service under Water Resources Department, Works Department and Housing & Urban Development Department through OPSC who had issued the advertisement on 17.04.2015 for filling of 682 posts in the above three Departments and pursuant to requisition received from Government in Water Resources Department, OPSC accordingly issued Corrigenda on 29.05.2015 by which age relaxation to JE/AE and reservation to sports persons were provided, but while doing so, the OPSC extended the last date for submission of application of the candidate in online mode from 27.05.2015 to 15.06.2015 and for submitting hardcopy from 12.06.2015 to 27.06.2015. it is, however, not disputed that the amended Rules, 2015 came into force on 21.05.2015 and the OPSC had issued the Corrigenda pursuant to the requisition of Water Resources Department vide letter dated 23.05.2015 which was within the last date for submission of application. However, the Corrigenda issued to include reservation for sports person was already been notified in Odisha Gazette w.e.f. 11th December, 2014 which of course cannot be said to be after the last date for submission of application. Be that as it may, since the last date for submission of application form having being extended and no prejudice having being claimed by any of the candidates who had applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement, it would be neither correct to say that no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the candidates nor can it be said that the Corrigenda were issued after the last date for submission of application depriving any of the candidates to take its benefit.

17. Yet, another aspect which is linked in this case is that the applicants in the OAs had challenged the Corrigenda after appearing in the examination with full knowledge of the Corrigenda and the Corrigendum issued for age relaxation to bring participation of inservice candidates who were out of zone of consideration at the initial stage of advertisement. It is also not in dispute that the applicants had approached the Tribunal after four to five months of the issuance of Corrigenda which is after consciously participating in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued for filling up the vacancies for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, but this Court is conscious of the principle that a candidate can challenge the selection process, but once he having taken part in the selection process without any protest cannot after words normally challenge the same. In this regard, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others; 2023 SCC Online 344, wherein it has been held that candidates having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having being declared unsuccessful and candidates cannot approbate or reprobate at the same time. In the present case soon after issuance of Corrigenda, neither the applicants in the OAs had challenged the Corrigenda immediately nor had they protested the same by making representation either to the Department or to OPSC, but they had consciously applied to sit in the examination and sometime after appearing in the examination, they suddenly had challenged the Corrigenda before the Tribunal which only reflects their acquiescence to the Corrigenda by waiver and the interveners stand in much lesser footing than the applicants, since neither they had challenged the Corrigenda in the Tribunal nor before this Court which relegates them to be fence sitter watching the litigation between some of the examinee and the recruitment agency/ department and taking a calculative steps by filing intervention application in these writ petitions only to support the impugned order. However, the dicta of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) would squarely applicable in the case of interveners, since they only dispute the issuance of Corrigenda after unsuccessfully appearing in the examination. Besides, the intervener, who has been impleaded as O.P. No.10 in W.P.(C) No.8290 of 2016 had filed O.A. No.2474 of 2015 with a prayer to direct OPSC to conduct recruitment test afresh, but the Tribunal having disposed of the same O.A. in the light of direction and observation passed in the impugned order and he having approached this Court in the year 2020 was added as O.P. No.10 to the writ petition, however, he has filed counter affidavit only to support the findings of the Tribunal, not withstanding to his claim and prayer to direct for conducting fresh recruitment test. More or less, is the case of the other intervener Rajiv Lochan Padhi, who has been impleaded as O.P. No.11 to the writ petition. On the other hand, the interveners in I.A. No.13534 of 2023 to the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.15877 of 2016 have never challenged the Corrigenda in any forum and for the first time, they have filed the aforesaid intervention application to interfere in the matter, but this Court, however, has afforded opportunity to the counsel for the aforesaid interveners to argue in the matter. In the aforesaid situation, the interveners in I.A. No.13534 of 2023 having approached to this Court after long lapse of issuance of advertisement/Corrigenda and that too, they having unsuccessful in the examination, their case is squarely covered by the principle enunciated in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra).