Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Order No. 24.03.2026

06. State and its officials have preferred this Intra-Court Appeal. They call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 02.05.2023 entered in Respondent's W.P.(C).(OAC) No. 853 of 2018 & W.P.(C)(OAPPC) No.282 of 2016, whereby a direction has been issued to the OPSC to recommend name of the Respondent for the post of Assistant Professor of Surgery coupled with a direction to the Appellants to issue appointment order in terms of such recommendation.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants submits that earlier the OPSC had sent the Waiting List at the instance of the Government itself; however, because of certain litigations that were fought at the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court, OPSC was directed to withdraw the Waiting List and accordingly, it withdrew. He also submits that, power to issue a direction would also include the power to recall the direction and to undo what has been done pursuant to such direction in view of Section 22 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937. This aspect having not been considered by the learned Single Judge, there is an error of great magnitude warranting interference of this Court.

3. Learned counsel representing the private Respondent vehemently opposes the Appeal contending that the principle of Section 22 would not be applicable in matters like this; the Government itself had directed the OPSC and accordingly the Waiting List was prepared and submitted; abruptly, the Government could not have turned around and instructed the OPSC to recall the Waiting List, quoting certain untenable grounds. He also tells that his client has been working as Associate Professor of Surgery on ad hoc basis and justice would have been served to him by virtue of impugned order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, regardless of arguable infirmities in the impugned order, this Court should not interfere. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the OPSC maintains equidistance from both the sides and tells that his client has already submitted the Waiting List in terms of the impugned order to the Government.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. The Government, which had directed the OPSC to prepare and submit a Waiting List, all of a sudden, could not have turned around and recalled its instructions to the OPSC, which had already acted upon such instructions. In such a situation, we are not sure if the Rule underlines Section 22 of 1937 Act would be readily invokable. That apart, ours is a Government by Rule of law and therefore, all its actions should be animated by reason, justice and fair play, arbitrariness being anathema to the Rule of law vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC