Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26.10.2021 Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. All these writ petitions arise from a common set of facts and involve the same issues and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The lead petition viz., W.P.(C) No.13119 of 2014 is by the State of Odisha through the General Administration Department (GAD) and is directed against an order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (OAT) in O.A. No.1731 (C) of 2010 filed by Opposite Party No.1 (Ms. Suravi Mohanty). By the said impugned order, the OAT disposed of the aforementioned O.A. along with 28 other O.As. and quashed the select list published on 22nd May, 2010 of the successful candidates, who appeared in the examination held by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for filling up vacancies of different posts under the Odisha Civil Services (OCS) (Categories-I and II).

9. On 24th December, 2009, the result of the main examination conducted by the OPSC was published. Between 15th and 26th February, 2010, the viva-voce test was conducted.

10. Meanwhile, an interim order was passed by the OAT, which was challenged in this Court by some of the candidates as well as the OPSC in separate writ petitions. This Court allowed both writ petitions by a common order and quashed the interim order passed by the OAT and directed that the interviews/viva voce would continue. Thereafter the interviews were conducted between 16th April to 21st May, 2010 and the final select list was published on 22nd May, 2010 by the OPSC. The final list comprising 378 candidates was submitted to the GAD on 11th June, 2010 by the OPSC.

17. It was held by the OAT in the impugned order that the selected candidates were appointed against the upgraded posts without inviting applications through a fresh advertisement and making a fresh selection to fill up the upgraded Class-I posts. It was accordingly held that "the selected candidates cannot be treated to have been continuing in Class-II Service to be brought over to Class-I (Junior Branch) as on 25.5.2009/28.2.2009 since they participated in the selection process for appointment in Class-II/Specially declared Gazetted service/posts and no appointment order had been issued in their favour as against those Class-II Service/posts before the cut-off date." It was further held that since all eligible persons were not given a chance to participate in the selection since no advertisement was issued for filling up the upgraded Class-I posts "the orders of appointment issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 380 as against those upgraded posts/services, on the basis of the select list under Annexure-6, are completely unjust, illegal and violative of the mandates of Constitution of India, more particularly Articles 14 and 16 and hence are liable to be quashed." The authorities were nevertheless given the liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for the newly created posts inviting applications from all candidates, who were eligible at the time of the advertisement No.8 of 2006- 07 and thereafter conducted fresh selection through the OPSC and issued appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates. Further, the authorities, who were "at liberty to issue appointment order in favour of the selected candidates, as against the posts, which were in existence, as per the advertisement and for which they were selected."