The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 20739 of 2021 ..... Sambhuram Nial & Ors. Petitioners Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 4) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 24.09.2025 Order No.13 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 4. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.13.04.2021 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-13, wherein claim of the Petitioners to make a requisition to the Commission to send a fresh list of eligible candidates to fill up the non-joining vacancies of the recruitment year 2013 vide Advertisement dtd.05.12.2013 under Annexure-1 was rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 05.12.2013 under Annexure-1, Petitioners participated in the selection process for the Combined Police Service Examination 2013 and for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Page 1 of 5. Sergeant of Police, Deputy Subedar and Station Officer (Fire Service) under the Home Department. 4.1. It is fairly contended that even though in the merit list so published with the recommendation made by the Commission, Petitioners’ name was not there, but since a number of recommended candidates did not join, in terms of the provisions contained under Para 17(4) of the (Combined Competitive Recruitment Examination for Group-C post of Odisha) Police Service Odisha Fire Service Order, 2003 under Annexure-4, as against those non-joining vacancies, there was a provision to submit a fresh select list. Para 17(4) of the said order reads as follows:- “(4) If any sponsored candidate fails to join the post, on being by the appointing authority the Commission shall sponsored name of other deserving candidate from the merit list for appointment against that vacancy.” 4.2. It is also contended that against those non-joining vacancies when no requisition was made by the Govt. requesting the Commission to sponsor the names of other eligible candidates, a batch of Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal with similar prayer as made in the present writ petition. In one of those Original Applications, Petitioner No. 2 was also an applicant.
Decision
However, all those O.As. as admitted in the Bar were disposed of as having become infructuous. 4.3. However, present Petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3159 of 2021 inter alia with a prayer to direct the Govt. to make a fresh requisition to the Commission to sponsor the names of eligible candidates, taking into account the non-joining vacancies of the recruitment undertaken pursuant to Annexure-1. Page 2 of 5. However, without proper appreciation of the provisions contained under Para 17(4) of the 2008 order and the fact that such claim was there before the Tribunal in the year 2017, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.13.04.2021 under Annexure-13, inter alia on the ground that those non-joining vacancies have already been filled up during subsequent recruitment, undertaken by the Govt. through the Commission. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that as on today, there are vacancies available and basing on the interim order passed by this Court on 30.06.2022 in I.A. No. 15997 of 2021, four (4) posts have been kept vacant in respect of the subsequent recruitment undertaken for the Combined Police Service Recruitment Examination 2019. 4.5. It is contended that taking into account the nature of interim order passed by this Court vide order dtd.30.06.2022 wherein four (4) posts have been kept vacant and the non-joining vacancies available in respect of the recruitment undertaken in the year 2013, claim of the Petitioners be considered as against those four posts which have been kept vacant pursuant to the above interim order of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the recruitment is of the year 2013 and claim of the Petitioners to sponsor their names against non-joining vacancies cannot be made as all those non-joining vacancies have already been filled up in subsequent recruitments undertaken by the Government. No requisition as such was ever made by the Govt. to fill up those non- joining vacancies by requesting the Commission to sponsor the names of eligible candidates. It is accordingly contended that, Page 3 of 5. Petitioners have got no cause of action to file the present writ petition. 6. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand contended that since as against those non-joining vacancies, no fresh requisition was made by all the Heads of Department, save and except one Department, the Commission could not make any fresh recommendation against those non- joining vacancies of the 2013 Recruitment. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the admitted fact that there were non-joining vacancies pursuant to the 2013 recruitment, taking into account the interim order passed by this Court on 30.06.2022 in I.A. No. 15997 of 2021, this Court is of the view that claim of the Petitioners is required to be considered against those four (4) vacant posts, if they were otherwise eligible in the recruitment undertaken by the Commission in the year 2013. This Court accordingly while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioners to make a fresh joint application before Opp. Party No.4 to get the benefit of recommendation taking into account their performance in the 2013 recruitment. 7.1. It is observed that if any such application will be moved within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 4 shall take a lawful decision on the same strictly taking into account their performance in the recruitment so held pursuant to Annexure-1 within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the application. Page 4 of 5. 7.2. On such recommendation, if any made by the Commission, Opp. Party No.1 is directed to take a lawful decision with regard to providing appointment to the Petitioners within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendation. Opp. Party No. 1 is further directed to take an independent decision without being guided by the earlier rejection so made by him vide order dtd.13.04.2021 under Annexure-13. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2025 13:10:11 Page 5 of 5.