Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Routray And vs Opsc And Others on 6 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 26705 of 2021
And
I.A. No.12375 of 2021
Saroj Kumar Routray and .... Petitioners
others
Dr. J.K. Lenka, Adv.
-Versus -
OPSC and others .... Opposite Parties
.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
06.09.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking
direction to the opposite parties to make reservation for SEBC
category candidates to the extent of 11.25% out of total 46 posts
advertised as per Annexure-3, and further seeks direction to the
opposite parties to relax the upper age limit in respect of the
petitioners by specifying the eligibility as on 01.01.2018 instead
of 01.01.2021, as no recruitment was made during 2018 to 2020.
They further seek direction to the opposite parties to modify the
advertisement no.08 of 2020-21 in Annexures-2 and 3 by issuing
corrigendum.
3. Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that recruitment to the post of Assistant Public
Prosecutor in Group-B under Home Department was issued for
the first time under advertisement no.12 of 2016-17 to fill up
192 vacancies vide Annexure-1. After such recruitment process
was over in the year 2017, no recruitment was made. Thereafter,
vide Annenxure-2 an advertisement was issued bearing no.08 of
2020-21 to fill up 46 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor
(Group-B) in the Odisha State Prosecution Service under Home
Department. But all on a sudden, the same has been deleted from
the website of the Commission and a fresh advertisement was
issued bearing advertisement no.08 of 2021-22 under Annexure-
3 indicating 46 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Group-
B) in the Odisha State Prosecution Service under Home
Department, in which no reservation has been prescribed for
SEBC category, which is required to be done in conformity with
the resolution dated 24.06.2014 under Annexure-6, which
provides that as the reservation in favour of SC is 16.25% and in
case of ST is 22.50%, it is necessary to limit the percentage of
reservation in favour of SEBC at 11.25% till final judgment is
passed by the High Court where the above judgment of the
OAT has been challenged in W.P.(C) No.7504 of 2014. It is
contended that the advertisement does not indicate any
reservation so far as SEBC category is concerned. It is further
contended that since the petitioners belonged to SEBC category,
had reservation been indicated in the advertisement, then they
would have been eligible to be considered to participate in the
selection process. More so, the vacancy position has also not
been indicated in the advertisement and as per the information
received under the Right to Information Act under Annexure-8,
wherein it has been stated that the recruitment procedure for last
recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was
completed during 2018. Requisition for filling up of subsequent
46 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the year 2018-19
was placed before the Odisha Public Service Commission,
Cuttack. It is contended that if the vacancy position has been
indicated for the year 2018-19, then cut off date should have
been given as 01.01.2018 instead of 01.01.2021. Had the cut off
date been 01.01.2018, then the petitioners would have been
eligible to participate in the process of selection and, as such,
pursuant to fixation of cut off date as 01.01.2021, the petitioners
have been deprived of even in the UR category being overaged.
It is further contended that as per the information under RTI Act
under Annexure-9, the total number of sanctioned post of
Assistant Public Prosecutors as on 01.07.2021 is 2019 and
current vacancy position is 67. Category-wise post of Assistant
Public Prosecutor is not available in the Directorate since
Government in Home Department is the appointing authority of
the Public Prosecutor. Thereby, the reservation which is
applicable to SEBC category as 11.25% has not been carved out
by the total vacancies available. Consequentially, the petitioners,
who belonged to SEBC category, had been debarred to
participate in the process of selection, which caused prejudice to
them. It is further contended that in view of the provisions
contained under the Orissa State Prosecution Service Rules,
1997, as per Rule-6 of notification of vacancies for direct
recruitment, every year during the month of December, the
Government in Home Department shall notify the available and
anticipated vacancies for the next year indicating the reservation
for the various categories to the Orissa Public Service
Commission for direct recruitment to the cadres of Assistant
Public Prosecutor in Group-B and Public Prosecutor in Group-A
service. But the impugned advertisement was published without
following Rule-6 of Rules, 1997 under Annexure-5. Thereby,
the advertisement has to be quashed, as the same has not been
published in adherence to the rules itself and without indicating
the reservation position of SEBC category. More so, the upper
age limit has not been relaxed because of delay in publication of
the advertisement itself.
4. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires
consideration.
5. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
6. Two extra copies of the writ petition be served on
learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3
within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file
counter affidavit.
7. Steps for service of notice on opposite party no.1 by
speed post with A.D. be taken within three days. Office shall
send notice to the said opposite party fixing an early returnable
date.
8. As an interim measure, it is directed that the hard copy
of the application of the petitioners shall be accepted by the
opposite parties without prejudice to the claim made in the writ
petition and also the same shall abide by the result of this case.
The application shall be filed well within the time specified in
the advertisement itself.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
