The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. Nos.138, 125, 132, 134 and 139 of 2025 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants -Versus- Supriya Kar and others (In W.A. No.138 of 2025) Riyanka Malik and others (In W.A. No.125 of 2025) Sudhir Ranjan Sahu (In W.A. No.132 of 2025) Puspanjali Bhitria (In W.A. No.134 of 2025) Satyajit Behera (In W.A. No.139 of 2025) …. Respondents Advocates appeared in these cases: For Appellants : Mr. Saswat Das, For Respondents Additional Government Advocate : Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. K. T. Mudali, Advocate (In W.A. No.138 of 2025) Mr. Durgesh Narayan Rath, Advocate (In W.A. Nos.125 & 139 of 2025) and Mr. Monomay Basu, Advocate W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 1 of 16 (In W.A. Nos.132 & 134 of 2025) CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 10th September, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.
Facts
I.A. No.266 of 2025, I.A. No.249 of 2025, I.A. No.253 of 2025 & I.A. No.279 of 2025 arising out of W.A. No.125 of 2025, W.A. No.132 of 2025, W.A. No.134 of 2025 and W.A. No.139 of 2025 respectively. 1. The aforementioned applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals beyond the statutory period of limitation provided therefor. 2. Several appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and order disposing of several writ petitions filed by the respective writ petitioners and one or more matters have already been admitted for final disposal. Since the said common judgment is challenged in several appeals filed by the State, it would be necessary to avoid any discrepancies and/or conflict in decisions to W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 2 of 16 operate the instant appeals be also heard along with the other appeals, which have already been admitted. 3. Apart from the same, we have perused the averments made in these applications, which prevented the appellants to file the appeals within the statutory period of limitation and found the same to be satisfactory and, therefore, the applications for condonation of delay are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned. W.A. Nos.138, 125, 132, 134 and 139 of 2025 4. The instant writ appeals are filed by the State assailing the common judgment dated 26th April, 2024 passed by the Single Bench disposing of several writ petitions filed by the respective writ petitioners as the common question of law was involved therein. Since the challenge is made to a composite judgment disposing of the several writ petitions, separate writ appeals are filed and in order to avoid the prolixity of repetitions, we decide to dispose of the aforesaid writ appeals analogously. W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 3 of 16 5. The core issue involved in the instant writ appeals is, whether the Government can disengage or terminate the service of the respective writ petitioners without issuing show-cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing and above all, on the basis of a newspaper clipping, where the correspondent alleges several irregularities and/or illegalities in the recruitment process. 6. Before we proceed to decide the issue, it would be apposite to adumbrate the salient facts emerged from the record. Pursuant to the advertisement No.13, dated 29th November, 2017 issued through Office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Angul for appointment of the candidates in different categories/posts, the writ petitioners offered their candidature and were selected for appointment. In fact, the appointment was made on 17th June, 2020 and 31st May, 2021 respectively. It is not in dispute that on the day when the process for filling up of the posts mentioned in the advertisement was initiated, the Odisha Pharmacist Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (for short, “the Rules, 2015’) was in vogue. Since a report was published in the newspaper “the Sambad” on 7th September, 2021 raising the questions on the illegalities and irregularities committed W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 4 of 16 in the said recruitment process, the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha issued the letter dated 11th November, 2021 terminating and/or disengaging all such appointments given during the period from 13th March, 2019 to 2021 as the same violates provisions laid down in the Cadre Rules in force. The said letter of termination was challenged by the respective writ petitioners before the Single Bench by filing the respective writ petitions and by a common judgment, as referred to above, the Single Bench quashed and set aside the said letter of termination and directed the re-engagement of the respective writ petitioners. 7. The State took a defence in the counter affidavit filed before the Single bench that the procedure for appointment was illegal and irregular and the authorities must have followed the Rules promulgated in the year 20191 upon repealing the said Rules of 2015. 1 The Odisha Pharmacist Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 is brought into force in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of all orders and instructions issued in this regard except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession. W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 5 of 16 7.1. The Single Bench did not find any substance in the stand taken by the State and in course of hearing, we also invited the learned Additional Government Advocate to address us on such point. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that there was illegality and irregularity perceived in the recruitment process and the authorities should have completed the recruitment process by taking into consideration the change in law having intervened in the interregnum. 7.2.
Legal Reasoning
38. Following Sivanandan CT (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Another, (2024) 8 SCR 885 held: “31. … Prescribing minimum marks for viva-voce segment may be justified for the holistic assessment of a candidate, W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 11 of 16 but in the present case such a requirement was introduced only after commencement of the recruitment process and in violation of the statutory rules. The decision of the Full Court to depart from the expected exercise of preparing the merit list as per the unamended rules is clearly violative of the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioner. It also fails the tests of fairness, consistency and predictability and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 9.3. It was ultimately held that once the recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications, it ends with filling up of all the vacancies. It was further observed that the eligibility criteria so notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed in the midway unless the extant Rules so permit with further stipulation that even if the extant Rules permit any change to be brought, such change must withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and shall satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. Ultimately, it is held that the extant Rules having a statutory force are binding on the Recruiting Body in terms of procedure and eligibility. 9.4. The law enunciated in the larger Bench decision of the Apex Court leaves no ambiguity that once the recruitment process W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 12 of 16 is initiated following the procedures and the other criteria required in the statutory Rules in vogue, even if the said Rules is superseded and/or substituted and/or repealed, it does not affect the process which has to be completed following the provisions contained therein. The expression “extant Rules” as used in the judgment rendered by the larger Bench is in relation to Rules, which was prevalent at the time of initiation of the recruitment process and, therefore, any change beyond the powers having conferred in the said extant Rules in the midst of the recruitment process, is impermissible. It further stands on a strong logic of fairness and transparency. The uniformity and/or certainty in the selection process is the hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and eradicate any vices of arbitrariness, nepotism and/or favoritism. Even if the extant Rules permits any change to be brought in the midway, the exercise of such power must withstand on the parameters of Article 14 of the Constitution and also on the test of reasonableness. 9.5. It would be making the judgment bulky if the other judgments cited by the respective counsels reiterating and/or restating the principles of law as laid down by the larger Bench of W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 13 of 16 the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and, therefore, we do not intend to make any reference thereof. 10. Reverting to the factual matrix emanating from the records, undeniably the recruitment process was initiated when the Rules of 2015 was in vogue and, therefore, even if such Rules is subsequently superseded in the year 2019, there is no illegality and/or irregularity which could be perceived in completing the recruitment process by keeping the strict adherence of the provisions contained in the extant Rules, i.e., Rules of 2015. 10.1. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the stand of the State that the illegality and/or irregularity was perceived because of repeal of Rules, 2015 in the midway of the recruitment process. Furthermore, the State cannot terminate the engagement solely on the basis of the reports published in the newspaper without any corroborative evidence having produced in this regard. It would bring a chaotic situation if the Government solely acts upon the media report without taking any steps to find the veracity and/or truthfulness in the content thereof. The journalist/correspondent may have its own perception which may W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 14 of 16 or may not be correct and, therefore, it does not absolve the solemn duty of the State to make an extensive enquiry and upon finding convincing materials which justify the perception of the correspondent, then only appropriate steps may be taken. 11. A day has come, where the media which is regarded as one of the integral pillars of the system has to be more responsible and accountable to the people of the country in making any statement or publishing any fact, the veracity and the truthfulness requires some amount of evidence. 11.1. Even if the enquiry is stated to have been conducted after taking into account the responsible statement of the correspondent, we do not find any dissemination of the said report to the public by the State Government as the letter of the disengagement is solely based upon the content of the publication made in the print news media. The existence of media is indispensable as they play a very important and significant role. The moment such significance is attached, it brings greater responsibility in making and publishing the truth in a lucid and explicit manner without inculcating any W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 15 of 16 sense of confusion and/or ambiguity nor susceptible to be distorted. 12. Be that as it may, we do not delve to go much deep into above aspect as the observations made hereinabove was felt inevitable as the action of the State was entirely based upon the news published in the print media which caused serious prejudice
Arguments
On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the stand of the State is unacceptable and untenable for the simple reason that the authorities are bound to follow the statutory rules prevalent at the time of initiation of the recruitment process and not the subsequent Rules. 7.3. He arduously submits that it is impermissible to change the rule of the game in the midst of the match when the game has already been played and placed reliance upon a larger Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Tej Prakash W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 6 of 16 Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2024) 12 SCR 28. 7.4. He further submits that the State could not disclose any discrepancies, irregularities and/or illegalities in conducting the recruitment process except that the said process should have been conducted and/or completed on the basis of subsequent Rules having brought in the year 2019. As such Rules, 2019 is not applicable, there is no material forthcoming before the Court to arrive at the conclusion that the recruitment process suffers from irregularities and/or illegalities. 8. On the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and the stand taken by the respective counsels, the seminal point involved in the instant writ appeals, whether the Rules prevalent on the date of the initiation of the recruitment process is required to be applied and/or adhered to, even if such Rules, 2015 is repealed in the midst of the recruitment process. In other words, whether the authorities are bound to conduct the recruitment process prevalent on the date of the advertisement having published for filling up of various posts and even if such Rules, 2015 is subsequently repealed and/or W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 7 of 16 replaced by the subsequent Rules (Rules, 2019), it would not impact the recruitment process reckoned earlier as the same is required to be completed by following the extant Rules. 9. There are plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, where such issue was raised, whether the authorities should follow the Rules which was applicable on the date when the process for recruitment was initiated or shall be bound by the subsequent Rules as the said recruitment process could not be completed during the lifetime of the repealed Rules. It was consistently followed that once the game is played, the rule of the game shall not be changed in the midway. In other words, once the recruitment process commenced, the Rules applicable and/or prevalent at the relevant point of time shall be followed and/or be a guiding factor till the said recruitment process is complete. It would be immaterial if such Rules is either repealed and/or substituted by subsequent Rules as the authorities are bound to follow the extant Rules as on the date of the publication of the advertisement. W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 8 of 16 9.1. A Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540, noticed the divergent view having expressed in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court and referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to answer the reference, whether the State or its instrumentality can tinker with the rules of the game to apply in the procedure for selection, more particularly when the change sought to impose is more rigorous scrutiny for selection. Pursuant to such reference, the Five-Judge Bench was constituted and by a judgment in the case Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2024) 12 SCR 28 answered in the following:- “30. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected. What is suitable for one post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method/procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the Rules/Statute governing service and reservation. Thus, in our view, the appointing in authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 9 of 16 inviting empower applications absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise. The decision in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCR 1025 does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates mal practices in preparation of select list.” 9.2. The larger Bench while considering the broader issue, whether the procedure prescribed in the extant Rules can be violated, observed in the following:- “37. In Sivanandan C.T. and others Vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2023) 11 SCR 674 the issue before the Constitution Bench was whether for selection minimum marks could be prescribed contrary to the extant rules and the the advertisement. Answering the negative, in W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 10 of 16 Constitution Bench, speaking through one of us (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ), held: laudable that approach of “15. The Administrative Committee of the High Court decided to impose a cut off for the viva-voce examination actuated by the bona fide reason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicial office. However the Administrative Committee may have been, such a change would be required to be brought in by a substantive amendment to the rules which came in much later as noticed above. This is not a case where the rules of the scheme of the High Court were silent. Where the statutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in a manner consistent with the object and spirit of the Rules by an administrative order. the viva-voce. This was 16. In the present case, the statutory rules expressly provided that the select list would be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and further elaborated in the scheme of examination which prescribed that there would be no cut off marks for the viva-voce. This position is also reflected in the notification of the High Court dated 30th September, 2015. In this backdrop we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court suffered from its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules besides being manifestly arbitrary.”
Decision
to the writ petitioners as they are left without any livelihood since the day when the order of disengagement was issued upon them. 13. Since we do not find any merit in the writ appeals, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. 13.1. Needless to say that the time limit, within which the engagement is to be done as directed by the Single Bench, has lapsed because of the pendency of the writ appeals, we extend such time for a further period of two months from date. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: high Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 15:04:17 MRS/Laxmikant (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge W.A. No.138 of 2025 and Batch Page 16 of 16