The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17841 of 2025 Dr. Debabrata Rath ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Satya Ranjan Pati -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Medical Education And Training, Bbsr 3) Director, Health Services, Odisha 4) Dean And Principal Of M.k.c.g. Medical College And Hospital, Berhampur 5) Opsc, Represented By Its Chairman, Cuttack ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –Mr. S.Jena, A.S.C. Mr. P.k. Mohanty(senior Counsel) Mr. A.behera, Advocate for OPSC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 23.07.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Legal Reasoning
Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Arnab behera, learned counsel for the OPSC. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to:- Page 1 of 7. i) Why the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 shall not be quashed. ii) Why the Petitioner shall not be eligible to appear the examination to the post of Assistant Professor (Emergency Medicine) under Annexure-5. iii) Why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to allow the Petitioner to treat his joining from the date of appointment under Annexure-1. iv) Any other order/orders that to deem fit and proper shall not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to make the rule absolute and direct the Opp.Party No-5 to allow the Petitioner to appear the examination under Annexure-5 to the post of Assistant Professor (Emergency Medicine) and pass such other order / orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the petitioner who is a doctor was initially appointed as a Senior Resident in Emergency Medicine vide office order dated 22.05.2024. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 allowed the petitioner to join at his new place of posting and he was relieved from service on 19.09.2024 from his post of Senior Resident (General Medicine MKCG, MCH at Berhampur). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment dated 15.05.2025 for recruitment 24 posts of Assistant Professor, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and accordingly he was selected as per Assistant Professor in the faculty of Emergency Medicine. Although they were selected and appointment vide office letter dated 22.05.2024 under Annexure-3, however the petitioner was relieved from his previous place of posting vide order dated Page 2 of 7. 19.09.2024 under Annexure-4. Therefore, there was a delay of couple of months in joining at his new place of posting as Assistant Professor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the advertisement dated 15.05.2025 under Annexure-5 to the writ application submitted that for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the eligibility criteria, as mentioned in the said advertisement in respect of Emergency Medicine, provides that the applicant must have MD (Emergency Medicine) with one year post PG Senior Resident in Emergency Medicine. He further contended that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for appointment as Assistant Professor pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-5 on the ground that the petitioner does not have one year experience as required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor under Annexure-5 to the writ application. 6. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner who was selected and appointed vide order dated 22.05.2024 under Annexure-3 for the post of Senior Resident in General Medicine, MKCG, MCH, Berhampur, however, due to inaction and delayed action on the part of the Opposite Parties he could not join immediately. He further contended that after the petitioner was relieved vide order dated 19.09.2024 under Annexure-4, the petitioner joined at his present place of posting as Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay, if any, in joining in the post of Senior Resident is solely attributed to the State-Opposite Parties and that the petitioner is no way responsible for such delay. He further contended that taking into consideration the initial order of appointment to the post of Senior Page 3 of 7. Resident i.e. 22.05.2024, the petitioner had acquired one year experience in the post of Senior Resident. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner should have been considered by the Opposite Parties for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine. He further contended that the Opposite Parties have committed a gross illegality by not considering the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.05.2025 under Annexure-5 to the writ application. 7. Mr. A.Behera, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC on the other hand contended that the selection to the post of Assistant Professor was conducted strictly in terms of the advertisement dated 15.05.2025 under Annexure-5, as per the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor (Emergency Medicine) the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification i.e. the petitioner falls short of one years’ experience as is required for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-OPSC submitted that the OPSC has not committed any illegality in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-5. On such grounds, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the OPSC contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the state on the other hand contended that the petitioner does not have the experience for being appointed as Assistant Professor and such fact is evident from the materials available on the records. He also referred to the counter affidavit submitted before this Court that the petitioner is ineligible for being Page 4 of 7. appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. As such the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in not considering the case of the petitioner. accordingly, he also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions, on a close scrutiny of the pleadings of the respective parties as well as documents annexed to the writ application, this Court observe that the only issue i.e. required to be decided in the present writ application is with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner in terms of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement at Anenxure-5 for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Emergency Medicine. So far, the eligibility criteria is concerned the same has been specifically provided in the advertisement at Annexure-5. It is not disputed that the petitioner does not have required educational qualification or degree. Only difficulty that arose in considering the case of the present petitioner is with regard to the experience of one year as has been prescribed in the said advertisement. 10. Learned counsel for the OPSC as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner did not have one year experience as required under the advertisement as per Annexure-5. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. In reply to such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that taking into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioner as Senior Resident pursuant to the office order dated 22.05.2024 under Annexure-3, the petitioner had acquired one year experience by the last date of submission of the application in response to the advertisement under Annexure-5 to the Page 5 of 7. writ application. He further contended that the delay in joining in the post of Senior Resident is solely attributable to the State-Opposite Parties as the petitioner was not relieved till 19.09.2024 although he was appointed and posted in the post of Senior Resident vide order at Anenxure-3 to the writ application. 11. On a careful analysis of the factual background, this Court observe that it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Resident on 22.05.2024, however there was delay in joining against the post of Senior Resident as the petitioner was not relieved till 19.09.2024 under Annexure-4 to the writ application. Therefore, such delay in joining cannot be attributed to the petitioner as he was not relieved till 19.09.2024 by the State-Opposite Parties. In course of hearing of the matter it was brought to the notice of this Court that the rules under which the present recruitment is being carried out provide a clause for relaxation. Rule 21 of the Odisha Medical Education Service Method of Recruitment Condition of Service Rules, 2021 confer powers on the State-Government to grant relaxation in an appropriate case. 12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for grant of relaxation in accordance with law. In the aforesaid background, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with a copy of today’s order with an application for grant of such relaxation taking therein the grounds in support of such contentions within ten days from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider such application of the petitioner under the Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules and dispose of the application by passing a speaking Page 6 of 7. and reasoned order within two weeks from the date of receiving such representation. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
Decision
application stands disposed of. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Jul-2025 13:34:45