Orissa High Court
Dr.Prajyoti Swain And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15435/2019, W.P.C (OAC) No.922/2019,
W.P.(C) No.16065/2019, W.P.C.(OAC) No.704/2019,
W.P.(C) No.17550/2019 and W.P.(C) No.14777/2019.
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
In W.P.(C) No.15435/2019
Dr.Prajyoti Swain and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and another ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr.Sameer Kumar Das,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sanjib Swain,
Advocate
In W.P.C (OAC) No.922/2019
Dr.Prajyoti Swain and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
Page 1 of 25
State of Odisha and others
... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr.Sameer Kumar Das,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sanjib Swain,
Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.16065/2019
Dr.Pradeep Kumar Paikray
and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Pattnaik,
Sr.Advocate
Ms. S. Pattnaik,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sanjib Swain,
Advocate
W.P.(C) No. 15435 of 2019 & batch Page 2 of 25
In W.P.C(OAC) No.704/2019
Dr.Pradeep Kumar Paikray
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Manmaya Ku.Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sanjib Swain,
Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.17550/2019
Dr.Sanjay Kumar Pani
and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
OPSC and another ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
W.P.(C) No.15435 of 2019 & batch Page 3 of 25
For Opposite Party No.1 :Mr. P.K.Mohanty,
Senior Advocate.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A
In W.P.(C) No.14777/2019
Dr.Santosh Ranjan Jena
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Gautam Misra,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Sanjib Swain,
Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 7 : Mr.N.K.Praharaj, G.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
14.10.2022.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. All these Writ Petitions involve similar facts and common
questions of law. As such, the Writ Petitions were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Before proceeding to narrate the facts, it would be proper
to indicate the reliefs claimed in each of these Writ Petitions,
which are enumerated as follows:
In W.P.(C) No.15435/2019
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to quash the
order dated 1st July, 2019 under
Annexure-7 and further the Hon'ble
Court be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ/writs, direction/
directions, order / orders."
In W.P.C (OAC) No.922/2019
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to quash the
final merit list published by the OPSC on
2.3.2019 under Anneuxre-4 and the
consequential Govt. Notification dated
8.3.2019 under Annexure-5 and to direct
the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to select
and appoint the Petitioners as Asst.
Surgeon pursuant to the advertisement
under Annexure-1 and grant them all
consequential service and financial
benefits within a stipulated period."
In W.P.(C) No.16065/2019
"It is therefore prayed that Your
Lordship would be graciously pleased to
admit this writ petition and issued Rule
Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties as
to why the Selection list dated 2.3.2019
annexed under Annexure-5 issued by the
Opposite Party No.1 shall not be
quashed/set aside. There shall not be a
direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to
issue appointment order in favour of
Petitioners for the post of Medical
Officers (Asst. Surgeons) pursuant to
Advertisement dated 5.1.2019 under
Annexure-1. The action of Opp. Parties
shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary
and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India".
In W.P.C (OAC) No.704/2019
"The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit
the Writ Petition and direct the Opposite
Parties to include the name of the
Petitioner in the select list at Annexure-5,
relaxing the age limit as per Rule-7 of
the 2017 Rule and consequently direct
the Opposite Party No.1 to issue
appointment order in favour of the
Petitioner for the post of Medical Officer
(Asst. Surgeon pursuant to Advertisement
dated 5.1.2019."
In W.P. (C) No.17550/2019
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be graciously pleased to issue
a rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties
to show cause as to why the OPSC shall
not directed to furnish a fresh list
against the 107 vacant posts as per
Annexures-7 and 8 and the State
Government shall not be directed to
make appointment of the Petitioners
against the vacant post of Asst. Surgeons,
Group-A(Junior Branch) in Odisha
Medical Service Cadre."
In W.P. (C) No.14777/2019
"Under the facts and circumstances as
narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue notice to
the Opp. Parties and after hearing the
parties be pleased to direct the
concerned Opp. Parties to recommend
and then give appointment to the
Petitioner to the post of Asst. Surgeon in
pursuance to the Advertisement No.18 of
2018-10 under Annexure-1 within a
stipulated time period as he has secured
103 marks which is 14 marks more than
the cut-off marks (89 marks) and further
be pleased to pass any other
order/orders as deemed fit and proper."
Thus, the common grievance of the Petitioners in
all these Writ Petitions is non-inclusion of their names in the
select list for being recommended for appointment as Medical
Officers (Asst. Surgeons) pursuant to the advertisement dated
5th January, 2019.
3. For convenience, however, W.P.(C) No.15435/2019 is
considered as the lead case as facts of this case are identical to
the other Writ Petitions also.
4. An advertisement was published by the Odisha Public
Service Commission (OPSC) being advertisement
No.18/2018-19 for recruitment to 1950 posts of Medical
Officers (Asst. Surgeons) in Group-A (Junior Branch) of
Odisha Medical and Health Services Cadre. The Petitioners,
who were appointed as Asst. Surgeons on ad hoc basis by the
State Government and were working in different PHCs of the
State for 4 to 5 years, submitted their applications. It is stated
that the Petitioners had crossed the upper age limit for entry
into the service i.e. 32 years, but in view of Clause-3 of the
advertisement wherein age relaxation upto the maximum of
five years was provided for doctors already in service of the
Government contractually or on ad hoc basis, the Petitioners
submitted their applications. Out of 1950 posts, 838 posts
were unreserved and the rest was reserved for SC and ST
categories. There was no post reserved for SEBC category.
The Petitioners belong to the SEBC category and as such,
claimed age relaxation of 3 years also. The Petitioners
appeared in the written examination, the result of which was
published on 28th February, 2019 wherein the names of the
Petitioners did not find place. On 2nd March, 2019 the final list
of 938 candidates, who were selected for appointment, was
published and the name of the Petitioners also did not find
place therein. Subsequently, the OPSC published the cut-off
mark of different categories and also the marks secured by
individual candidates in the written test. From the marks so
published, the Petitioners came to know that despite securing
more than the cut-off mark i.e. 89 in UR category, they had
not been included in the select list. It is the case of the
Petitioners that even though they belong to SEBC category
they having secured more marks than the cut-off, are entitled
to be selected on the basis of their merit under the unreserved
category. The Petitioners therefore, approached the State
Government against such illegality but without result.
Therefore, they moved the State Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack in O.A. No.922(C)/2019 seeking the following
reliefs:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to quash the
final merit list published by the OPSC on
2.3.2019 under Anneuxre-4 and the
consequential Govt. Notification dated
8.3.2019 under Annexure-5 and to direct
the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to select
and appoint the Petitioners as Asst.
Surgeon pursuant to the advertisement
under Annexure-1 and grant them all
consequential service and financial
benefits within a stipulated period."
In the mean time the Tribunal was abolished and the said
O.A. has been transferred to this Court and registered as
W.P.C (OAC) No.922/2019. Since all the vacant posts were
about to be filled up, the Petitioners approached this Court in
the present writ applications seeking the relief as already
indicated under paragraph-2 of this judgment.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State
Government (Opposite Party No.1). It is stated that out of
1950 posts of Asst. Surgeons, a list of 938 selected candidates
was received from the OPSC. Out of such 938 candidates, 107
candidates belonging to different categories did not join. Since
the State is running with acute shortage of doctors and the
Government is taking additional measures to fill up the vacant
posts of doctors in all peripheral Hospitals of the State, the
OPSC was requested by letter dated 6th April, 2019 to provide
a list of 107 selected candidates. In response, the OPSC in its
letter dated 29th April, 2019 refused to provide the same.
Subsequently, the Government again requested the OPSC vide
letter dated 1st July, 2019 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) to
provide a list of 107 selected candidates. It is further stated
that recruitment process of Asst. Surgeon has been continuing
every year. In view of the recruitment held for the previous
years, it was found that the total sanctioned posts of SEBC
category being 414 against the total sanctioned strength of
3683 posts of Asst. Surgeons, 452 Medical Officers belonging
to the SEBC category were in position. Thus, 38 doctors
belonging to the SEBC category were in position more than
the sanctioned strength. For such reason, the position of
SEBC category was shown as zero and the vacancy of UR
category was shown as 838 deducting the 38 SEBC posts from
876 posts of UR category. It is further stated that there was no
upper age relaxation for SEBC category in Advertisement
No.18 of 2018-19 issued by the OPSC. It is further stated that
the impugned order under Annexure-7 is not in force in view
of refusal by the OPSC to provide the list of 107 selected
candidates and the said 107 vacancies have already been
included in the requisition of 3278 vacancies decided by the
Government for recruitment. Therefore, the prayer of the
Petitioners for quashment of Annexure-7 has become
infructuous.
6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the OPSC. While
reiterating the undisputed facts relating to the recruitment
process such as number of vacancies belonging to each
category etc. it is stated that the Petitioners had submitted
their online applications within the stipulated period clearly
indicating therein that their candidatures are to be considered
under SEBC category and that they had also indicated with
regard to their past service as Medical Officers under the State
Government to their credit in order to get preference with
regard to relaxation of age. Rule 7 of the Odisha Medical and
Health Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2017(for short, "2017 Rules") and Clause-3 of
the advertisement have also been referred to. It is admitted
that the Petitioners have secured more than the cut-off marks
of 89, but were not selected as they had applied as SEBC
category for which no vacancy exists. Hence, their
candidature was rejected and written scores were not taken
into account. It is also stated that in view of the procedure
adopted by the UPSC, OPSC issued a notice dated 19th
January, 2018 to the effect that a reserved category candidate
availing relaxation in age is to be considered only for the
reserved posts and that reserved category candidate, who has
not availed any relaxation and also qualifies as per general
standard is to be considered for the open category post as a
meritorious reserved category candidate. Therefore, the names
of the Petitioners could not have been recommended to the
State Government.
7. Heard Mr. S.K.Das, Mr. J. Pattnaik, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. S. Pattnaik, Advocate, Mr. M.K.Dash, Mr. Pratik Dash
and Mr. Gautam Misra, Sr. Advocate, learned counsels
appearing for the Petitioners in all the cases, Mr.
N.K.Praharaj, learned Government Advocate for the State, and
Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.B.Jena and Mr. Sanjib
Swain, learned counsels appearing for the OPSC.
8. Leading the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners, Ms. S.
Pattnaik, would argue that the Petitioners had never claimed to
be considered under the SEBC category, but had only
indicated the category to which they belong against the
appropriate column in the application form. Further, the
Petitioners claimed age relaxation as per Rule 7 of the 2017
Rules read with Clause-3 of the advertisement. Since the
Petitioners have admittedly secured more than the cut-off
marks they should have been considered under the unreserved
category in view of the settled position of law that merit
cannot be ignored under any circumstances. As regards the
notice dated 19th January, 2018, it is submitted that the same
was never a part of the advertisement or ever intimated to the
candidates and hence, cannot be taken into consideration. Mr.
S.K.Das, while adopting the above contentions argues that
even otherwise, it is the settled position of law that age
relaxation cannot be a bar for consideration of the candidature
of an applicant on merits. Since all the candidates including
the Petitioners had appeared in the same written test without
lowering of any standard of such examination for the
Petitioners, it cannot be said that they having availed age
relaxation would not be eligible to be considered. Mr. M.Das
also adopts the above contentions and argues that if a
candidate secures a position in the select list on the basis of
his own merit, he cannot be treated to have been selected as a
reserved candidate.
9. Mr. N.K.Praharaj, learned Government Advocate, has
contended that the Government had submitted requisition to
fill up 1950 posts, out of which only 938 were selected. 107
candidates did not join, for which the Government requested
the OPSC to provide a list of 107 selected candidates for
consideration of their appointment, but the OPSC having
refused nothing further could have been done by the
Government. It is further stated that in W.P.(C)
No.15435/2019, out of 6 Petitioners, 4 have already been
appointed as Medical Officers vide Notification No.6834
dated 4th June, 2020 and therefore, the Writ Petition has
become infructuous in respect of them. It is further stated that
the validity of the select list has already expired in view of the
fresh round of recruitment conducted by OPSC.
10. Mr. Sanjib Swain, learned counsel appearing for the
OPSC referring to the application forms submitted by the
Petitioners, contends that they had consciously applied under
SEBC category despite the fact that there was no vacancy
under the said category and hence, they cannot be treated as
UR candidates. Further, they being admittedly over aged,
sought age relaxation as SEBC candidate, which was not
available to them. Since all the candidates were called to
attend the written examination and verification of particulars
takes place only after publication of the result of the written
test, the Petitioners being found to be ineligible, their
candidature was rightly rejected. Shri P.K.Mohanty, learned
Senior counsel, contends that even otherwise, the prayer in
some of the Writ Petitions being to quash the requisition of
Government asking for 107 names, the same has become
infructuous in view of refusal of OPSC to act upon it. It is
further contended that though interim order was passed by this
Court directing to keep certain posts vacant yet the same was
on the notion that the Petitioners had applied as UR
candidates. In any case, after submitting recommendation to
the Government, the OPSC becomes functus officio and the
unfilled vacancies have merged in the fresh recruitment
process.
11. The facts of the case as laid in the Writ Petitions are not
disputed inasmuch as 1950 posts were required to be filled up
out of which, 938 candidates were selected, out of whom,
107 candidates did not join. It is stated that the said 107
vacancies have since been included in the subsequent
recruitment process. However, as per order dated 28th August,
2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.15435/2019, 6 posts
have been kept vacant till date. Similar orders have been
passed in the other Writ Petitions. Therefore, at the outset, it
must be clarified that the assertion of the State Government
that 107 posts have been included in the fresh recruitment and
therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous is
untenable.
12. On merits, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant
statutory provision governing the field at the outset. In this
regard, reference to Rule 7 of the 2017 Rules would be
apposite, which is quoted herein below:-
"7. Eligibility criteria for direct
recruitment:- In order to be eligible for
direct recruitment to the service, a
candidate must;
(a) be a citizen of India
(b) have attained the age of 21 years and
must not be above the age of 32 years on
the first date of January of the year in
which applications are invited by the
Commission.
Provided that the upper age limit in respect
of reserve categories of candidates refer to
in Rule-5 shall be relaxed in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, Rules,
Orders or Instructions, for the time being
in force, for the respective categories.
Provided further that the upper age limit up
to 5 years shall be given to the doctors
serving of ad hoc or contractual basis
under the State Government/State
Government undertaking."
Thus, the Rule provides for relaxation of upper age
limit up to 5 years to the doctors serving on ad hoc or
contractual basis under the State Government. This is
reflected under Clause-3 of the advertisement, which reads as
follows:-
"3. Age- A candidate must have attained
the age of 21 (twenty one) years and must
not be above 32 years (Thirty two) years as
on 1st day of January, 20198 i.e. he/she
must have been born not earlier than 2nd
January, 1987 and not later than 1st
January, 1998.
The upper age limit prescribed above shall
be relax able by 5 (five) years for
candidates belonging to the categories of
Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled
Tribes(ST), Women, Ex-Servicemen and by
cumulative 10 years for candidates
belonging to Physically Handicapped
category, whose permanent disability is
40% and more.
Provided that, a candidate who comes
under more than one category mentioned
above, he/she will be eligible for only one
age relaxation benefit, which shall be
considered most beneficial to him/her.
Provided further that person with past
service as Medical Officers under the State
Government to their credit, shall be given
preference and in their case, the period of
service so rendered by the last date of
submission of applications shall be added
to the age limit for entry into the service
and it is up to a maximum period of five
years."
13. There is no dispute that the Petitioners have been
working on ad hoc basis as Asst. Surgeons in different PHCs.
A reference to the Online application of Petitioner No.1 shows
that he had completed 4 years 6 months and 5 days of service
as a Medical Officer under the State Government. Similarly,
Petitioner No.2 had completed three years one month and 29
days of service. Same is the case of other Petitioners also.
This has not been refuted in any manner by the State or
OPSC. As per the Rules quoted above and the relevant
provisions thereof in the advertisement the Petitioners are
undoubtedly entitled to relaxation of age on the basis of the
period of service rendered by them as Medical Officers under
the State Government as on the last date of submission of
application. In the counter filed by Opposite Party No.2, it is
stated under Paragraph-6 as follows:-
"6. That the petitioners pursuant to the
aforesaid advertisement had submitted their
Online Application (Annexure-2) within the
stipulated period for the post of Medical Officer
(Asst. Surgeons) clearly indicating therein that
their candidatures are to be considered under
SEBC category. They had also indicated with
regard to their past service as Medical Officers
under the State Government to their credit. In
order to get the preference with regard to
relaxation of age.
14. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioners
had claimed age relaxation as SEBC category. It is however,
a fact that they had mentioned SEBC under the column
'category' in the application form. The question is, can mere
mentioning of the category as SEBC deprive the Petitioners
from being considered on their own merit. Law, in this regard,
is fairly well settled. In the case of Pradeep Singh Dehal v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others; reported in (2019) 9
SCC 276, the Apex Court held that every person is first a
general category candidate. If a reserved category candidate
qualifies on merit, he will occupy general category seat. In
the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others; reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, the
question of concession given to reserved category candidates
and the same being a bar for their consideration for selection
on merit was considered. The following observations of the
Apex Court in the said case are relevant:-
"In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the
considered opinion that the submissions of the
appellants that relaxation in fee or age would
deprive the candidates belonging to the
reserved category of an opportunity to
compete against the general category
candidates is without any foundation. It is to
be noticed that the reserved category
candidates have not been given any advantage
in the selection process. All the candidates
had to appear in the same written test and
face the same interview. It is therefore quite
apparent that the concession in fee and age
relaxation only enabled certain candidates
belonging to the reserved category to fall
within the zone of consideration. The
concession in age did not in any manner tilt
the balance in favour of the reserved category
candidates, in the preparation of final
merit/select list."
15. In view of the law as has been laid down by the Apex
Court, it is clear that notwithstanding the fact that the
Petitioners belong to the SEBC category their candidature
cannot be ignored if they are found eligible on their own
merit.
16. Another aspect needs to be considered. Since there were
no vacancies under the SEBC category and the Petitioners
were otherwise eligible in view of Rule 7 of the 2017 Rules
read with Clause-3 of the advertisement, they can only be
treated as belonging to the unreserved category. Merely
because they had mentioned SEBC under the heading,
'category' cannot act as an irrevocable bar for consideration of
their candidature under the UR category. It is reiterated that
UR is not a category in itself and it is open to all the so-called
reserved categories. Even an SC/ST candidate can be
considered under the unreserved category on his own merit.
Such being the position of law there is no way by which the
candidature of the Petitioners could have been ignored merely
because they belong to the SEBC category.
17. It has been admitted under Paragraph-9 of the counter
filed by the OPSC that the Petitioner no.1 secured 103 marks,
Petitioner No.2, 94 marks, Petitioner No.3, 106 marks,
Petitioner No.4, 119 marks, Petitioner No.5, 108 marks and
Petitioner No.6, 100 marks, all of which are above the cut-off
mark, 89. In the other Writ Petitions also, the Petitioners are
found to have secured equal to or more than the cut-off mark
of 89. It implies, the Petitioners were entitled to be selected on
their own merit, but were not selected only because of absence
of vacancies under the SEBC category. This Court, therefore,
finds that the methodology adopted by the OPSC in finalizing
the select list in so far as the same relates to non-inclusion of
the Petitioners therein, is entirely wrong and untenable. As
regards the notice dated 19th January, 2018 issued by the
OPSC, this Court is of the view that the same cannot override
the law of the land as laid down by the Apex Court referred to
hereinbefore.
18. Now the question is, what relief can be granted to the
Petitioners. As already stated, the prayer in W.P.(C)
No.15435/2019 is for quashment of Annexure-7. Though it
is contended that the same has become infructuous in view of
refusal of the OPSC to recommend 107 names from the select
list yet, it is to be noted that six posts have been directed to be
kept vacant out of the 107 posts as per order passed by this
Court. Undoubtedly, issuance of Annexure-7 was the cause of
action for the Petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions, but
in view of the facts brought on record by the answering
Opposite Parties, it is clear that the relief claimed in the Writ
Petitions needs to be moulded appropriately to secure the ends
of justice. To reiterate, this Court having found that the
Petitioners were wrongly left out from the final select list, the
natural corollary would be to direct the OPSC to re-visit the
final select list appropriately. It has already been stated that in
the mean time, four Petitioners (Petitioner Nos.2,3,5 & 6) out
of six have been appointed as Medical Officers pursuant to a
fresh recruitment process undertaken. Obviously, they would
not be entitled to any relief whatsoever in the present Writ
Petitions as despite the interim order operating in their favour,
they chose to appear in the subsequent recruitment process
without obtaining leave of this Court or without prejudice to
their contentions in the present Writ Petition. Though it is
argued that apart from being included in the select list, the
Petitioners should also be given seniority, this Court is unable
to accept the same for the reason that the persons who are
already selected securing less marks than they have not been
impleaded as parties in the present Writ Petitions. For the
same reason also, the select list already published in respect of
938 candidates does not warrant any interference. Therefore,
the Petitioners can only claim to be considered for inclusion in
the select list in respect of the posts kept vacant as per order of
this Court and nothing more.
19. In view of the findings of this Court as indicated
hereinbefore, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with direction
to OPSC to recommend to the State Government within a
period of two months the names of only those Petitioners as
have secured more than the cut-off marks of the UR category
for their appointment as Medical Officers if they are otherwise
found not ineligible. Further, upon receipt of such
recommendation by the OPSC, if any, the State Government
shall take steps to appoint the concerned candidates within a
period of four weeks if there is no other legal impediment. It
is made clear that such Petitioners as are found to have already
been appointed during pendency of these Writ Petitions shall
not be covered by this order.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Ashok Kumar Behera Judge
