Orissa High Court
Deepak Kumar Padhi & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 26 May, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025
Deepak Kumar Padhi & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. S.Palit, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Adv. General
Mr. Saurav Tibrewal, Advocate for Intervener
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for Intervener
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
W.P.(C) No.12114 of 2025
Rakesh Ranjan Kar & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. M.K.Mishra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Adv. General
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
W.P.(C) No.12865 of 2025
Subrat Kumar Padhy ..... Petitioner
Ms. P.Rath, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Odisha Public Service
Commission Represented
through Chairman & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv. for OPSC
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
Page 1 of 41
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 | Date of Order: 26.05.2025
______________________________________________________
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
I.A. No.7976 of 2025 & I.A. No.8156 of 2025
1. Since both the above noted interim applications have
been filed by two different sets of candidates seeking
intervention in the present writ application, both the aforesaid
applications are taken up together for consideration and for
passing necessary consequential order.
2. Before considering the interim applications and
adjudicating the rights of the intervenors to participate in the
hearing and to put forth their views vis-à-vis the views of the
petitioners in the present writ application, it is pertinent to
throw light on the prayer made in the writ application bearing
W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 and a batch of connected other
writ applications. The above batch of writ applications have
been filed by a set of candidates with a prayer to quash the 5 th
corrigendum to advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 issued vide
notice No.2361/PSC dated 11.04.2025, by the Opposite Party
No.3-OPSC, under Annexure-4, and for a further direction to
the Opposite Party No.3 to the extent that the date fixed in the
notice dated 11.04.2025 as the last date for submission of
online application form for selection and recruitment to the
post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil and Mechanical)
in conformity with Para 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025
passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 and a batch of similar
other writ applications and thereby provide an opportunity to
the petitioners to appear in GATE exam for the year 2025-26.
3. I.A. No.7976 of 2025 has been filed by some of the
candidates who participated in the recruitment process
pursuant to the impugned advertisement. The intervenor-
petitioners have primarily approached this Court by filing the
above noted I.A. opposing the prayer of the writ petitioners
on the ground that the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 has
been issued by the OPSC in compliance with the judgment of
the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024.
The present intervenors basically support the changes made
by the OPSC pursuant to the judgment of this Court in its
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025. In such view of the matter,
learned senior counsel representing the intervenor-petitioners
contended that the intervenor-petitioners are necessary parties
to the present writ application and as such the present writ
application cannot be adjudicated in their absence. Moreover,
it was also contended that any final decision taken by this
Court in the present writ application with regard to
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is likely to affect the interest
of the intervenor-petitioners. As such, it was argued that the
intervention application be allowed and the intervenors be
added as Opposite Parties to the writ applications.
4. Similarly, another set up interveners-petitioners have
approached this Court by filing I.A. No.8156 of 2025. The
present intervenor-petitioners are those candidates who are
complying with the GATE requirement as per the
advertisement and, accordingly, have appeared in the
interview. The grievance of the intervenor-petitioners in the
abovenoted I.A. application is that although they are
confident of qualifying the recruitment test successfully,
however, due to the prolongation of the present litigation their
final results have not been published and as such they are
seriously prejudiced. This set of intervenors have also prayed
for vacation of the interim order passed earlier by this Court.
In such view of the matter, the learned senior counsel
representing this set up intervenor-petitioners argued that the
petitioners are necessary parties to the present writ
application and in their absence the lis cannot be adjudicated
effectively. As such, it was prayed that the intervention
application be allowed and the intervenor-petitioners be
provided an opportunity to participate in the hearing of the
present writ application as well as to have their say in the
matter of vacation of interim order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the
maintainability of the interventions petitions at the outset.
However, subsequently, the learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that he will have no objection in the
event the intervention applications are allowed to the extent
that the intervenors be permitted to either support or oppose
the prayer made in the writ application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a
careful examination of the intervention applications, and on a
close scrutiny of the documents annexed thereto, this Court
prima facie observes that any final order which is likely to be
passed while disposing of the writ application is definitely
going to affect the interest of the intervenor-petitioners.
Moreover, the writ petitioners and the intervenor-petitioners
have participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the
self-same advertisement. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that any final order passed in the present writ applications is
likely to affect all candidates who have either participated in
or are going to participate in view of the judgment of the
Division Bench as well as the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025.
Thus, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion
that the intervenor-petitioners are necessary parties to the
present writ applications. Accordingly, the intervention
applications are allowed. The intervenor-petitioners be added
as Opposite Parties to the above noted writ applications.
7. Accordingly, I.As. stand allowed.
8. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 have filed
this I.A. with a specific prayer for stay of operation of 5 th
corrigendum to advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 issued vide
notice dated 11.04.2025 by the Opposite Party No.3-OPSC,
under Annexure-4, till the disposal of the above noted writ
applications.
9. Before adjudicating the interim application on its own
merit, it is imperative to highlight the factual background of
the present writ application. On 21.12.2012 the Govt. of
Odisha framed the "Odisha Engineering Service (Method of
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012" for
regulating the appointment to Engineering service in the
State. Later on, sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2012
were amended vide amendment Rules, 2014 on 31.10.2014
thereby providing 90% weightage to objective type written
test and 10% weightage to viva-voce test by the OPSC.
10. While this was the position, on 28.01.2021 the above
noted Rules of the year 2012 was once again amended vide
amendment Rules, 2021. Accordingly, sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule
7 was suitably amended to select candidates on the basis of
highest of the valid GATE scores of preceding three years
from the date of advertisement. The constitutional validity of
the aforesaid amendment Rules, 2021 particularly with regard
to the amended sub-rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 were assailed before
this Court by some of the candidates by filing W.P.(C)
No.15738 of 2022 and a batch of similar other writ petitions.
A Division Bench of this Court, vide a common judgment
dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.15738 of 2022, was
pleased to strike down the "Odisha Engineering Service
(Method of Recruitment And Conditions of Service)
Amendment Rules, 2021".
11. Consequently, the Govt. of Odisha again amended sub-
rule 3 & 4 of Rule 7 by virtue of "Odisha Engineering Service
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Amendment Rules, 2023" thereby creating provision for
weightage of 90% from valid GATE score and 10% from
viva-voce test to be conducted by the OPSC. Finally, the
OPSC published advertisement No.19 dated 28.12.2023
inviting applications from desirous candidates for recruitment
to the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) in the Water
Resources Department, Govt. of Odisha. Similarly,
advertisement dated 29.12.2023 was published for
recruitment to the post of A.E.E. (Electrical) in the
Department of Energy, Govt. of Odisha.
12. While this was the position, the OPSC issued 4th
corrigendum to the advertisement vide letter No.961 dated
17.02.2024 adding 348 nos. of posts in the rank of A.E.E.
(Civil) to the existing 580 nos. of posts of A.E.E. (Civil). The
last date for submission of online application was fixed to
26.02.2024. It must be mentioned here that the process of
submitting online application pursuant to the advertisement
dated 28.12.2023 was supposed to commence w.e.f.
12.01.2024. However, by virtue of the second corrigendum
dated 12.01.2024 the date of making online application was
re-scheduled to 19.01.2024. Thereafter, a third corrigendum
to the advertisement dated 28.12.2023 was published by the
OPSC indicating therein that the candidates must have a
GATE score on the subject. Finally, the last date for making
online application was re-fixed to 26.02.2024.
13. W.P.(C) No.10185 and a batch of similar other writ
applications were filed by different candidates challenging
the vires of Rule 4 of the "OES (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Amendment Rule, 2023" whereby
Rule, 7(3) and 7(4) of the Rule, 2012 were amended and
modified and a further prayer was also made in the batch of
writ applications to quash the advertisement dated
28.12.2023. Likewise, W.A. No.948 of 2023 was filed
challenging the interim order dated 17.03.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No.596 of 2024 and a batch of writ applications.
Since both W.P.(C) No.10185 and W.A. No.948 of 2023 are
based on identical set of facts and the very same
advertisement, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court took
up both the matters together for final hearing and disposal
thereof.
14. The Hon'ble Division Bench after hearing the learned
counsels appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10185
as well as the counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties in
the said writ application was pleased to dismiss the writ
application challenging the vires of the Amendment Rules,
2023. However, while doing so the Hon'ble Division Bench
has given indulgence to the candidates who were otherwise
eligible as on the last date of making such application but
who could not get an opportunity to participate in the GATE
examination and submit their valid score. Keeping in view the
spirit of the judgment by the Hon'ble Division Bench
declaring the Amendment Rules, 2021 ultra vires, the
subsequent Division Bench while accepting the validity of
incorporation of GATE score as an eligibility criteria thought
it proper to extend the last date for making application to
accommodate such candidates who could not participate in
the GATE examination as they did not get any opportunity to
appear in such GATE examination after the Rule was
amended in the year 2023.
15. It appears that pursuant to the common judgment dated
15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 as well as W.A.
No.948 of 2023 directing extension of the last date for
making an application, the OPSC came forward with 5th
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 to the advertisement dated
28.12.2023. The fifth corrigendum was issued permitting the
candidates, who have already submitted their application, to
upload the enhanced/upgraded GATE score if they have got
any upgraded or enhanced valid GATE score. Challenging
the aforesaid 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025, the
Petitioners have approached this Court once again by filing
the present writ application.
16. Along with W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 and a batch of
similar other writ applications, the Petitioners have also filed
interim applications with a prayer to stay operation of the 5th
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 under Annexure-4 to W.P.(C)
No.12381 of 2025.
17. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners as well as learned senior counsels representing the
intervenor-petitioners who have already been added as
Opposite Parties to the writ application by virtue of the
preceding order, learned Advocate General for the State-
Opposite Parties and Mr. Arnab Behera, learned counsel
appearing for the Odisha Public Service Commission.
Perused the written note of submission filed by the respective
counsels. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12381 of 2025 at the
outset contended that the primary issue that falls for
consideration before this Court in the present writ application
is as to whether the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench
in Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.10185 of 2024 and a batch of similar writ applications
applies to the present petitioner? And, as to whether the
Petitioners can be allowed to apply and appear in the GATE
2026 examination and submit their scores to OPSC for
consideration of their candidature in the recruitment process
to the post of A.E.E pursuant to advertisement No.19 of
2023-24? He has also questioned the validity of the 5th
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 on the ground that the same is
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and not in conformity with
Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025. He further
contended that keeping in view the observation of the
Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated
15.01.2025, the petitioners be provided with a reasonable
opportunity to participate in the GATE examination by
extending the last date for making online application pursuant
to advertisement No.19 dated 28.12.2023 for the post of
A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical).
18. In course of his argument, Mr. Palit, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the
judgment dated 15.01.2025 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 acts as a springboard
to recognize the rights of the candidates who did not get a
chance to apply, appear and submit their valid GATE score to
OPSC and, as such, they were deprived of the opportunity to
participate in the recruitment process even though they were
having valid engineering degree. Further, drawing attention
of this Court to judgment dated 15.01.2025 of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, he further submitted that such judgment has
cast a wide net to incorporate candidates from a larger group.
Moreover, the principle basing upon which the Hon'ble
division Bench directed to extend the last date of making
online application is based on the doctrine of level playing
field and the principle of providing equal opportunity to the
candidates who have the eligibility and would become over-
aged to participate in any further advertisement likely to be
published in the subsequent years. Thus, it was argued that
the intention of the Division Bench was to provide at least
one opportunity to the candidates who have not appeared in
the GATE examination at all and to submit their score before
the OPSC and to participate in the recruitment process.
Therefore, the direction of the Division Bench in Para-33 &
36 of the judgment, which is in furtherance of the
fundamental rights of the candidates as guaranteed under
Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India, has not been
followed in its letter and spirit by publishing the corrigendum
dated 11.04.2025.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
further argue that all the petitioners were over 33 years of age
as of 24.08.2024, which is the starting date for GATE, 2025
applications. Since the GATE, 2025 examination was
scheduled to be held on February, 2025 and the result was to
be declared in March, 2025, the petitioners could not have
presumed or anticipated that they would have an opportunity
to participate in the recruitment process based on GATE 2025
score. Therefore, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel
that it was only after the judgment dated 15.01.2025 was
pronounced by the Hon'ble Division Bench that they were
given a level playing field to participate in the recruitment
process which had already closed on 26.02.2024.
20. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
laid a lot of emphasis on Para-33 & 36 of the judgment dated
15.01.2025 by the Hon'ble division bench in W.P.(C)
No.10185 of 2024. For better understanding of the claim
made by the present petitioner, this Court feels it proper to
extract Para-33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 herein-
below:-
"33. We are therefore inclined to interfere with the
advertisement only to the extent of extending the last
date of application for the reason that the 2023
Amendment Rules were published on 28.09.2023 and
the Advertisement No. 19 of 2023/24 was published
exactly three months later i.e , on 28.12.2023. Therefore
hardly any time has been provided to an otherwise
eligible candidate who had not appeared for GATE
earlier, to apply for and appear in the GATE test and
obtain his / her score, so as to apply for selection before
the last date. It is true that the last date of application
has been extended by subsequent corrigendum but these
do not provide the necessary opportunity to a candidate
who had not appeared in the GATE examinations within
the last three years, to apply for appearing m GATE
after the 2023 amendment on 28.09.2023 of the 2012
Rules and appear in the GATE examinations, so as to
become eligible to apply for selection / recruitment. We
have decided to do so instead of quashing the
advertisement keeping in mind:- i) the submission on
behalf of the State of Odisha that a number of posts are
lying vacant for which developmental work has been
affected on account of non-recruitment of Assistant
Executive Engineers ii) the submission that candidates
who had a valid score and being eligible had applied
for the posts; and iii) the candidates who have not
appeared in GATE but have been waiting since long to
apply for the posts and may become over age in case a
new advertisement is published. We accordingly direct
the OPSC to extend the last date of application, so that
eligible candidates who have not appeared in the GATE
examination in the last three years, get an opportunity
to appear in the examination at least once, obtain their
scores and submit their applications.
36. After having held thus, in view of the facts and
circumstances discussed above, we deem it just and
equitable to direct that the last date - 12.01.2024
indicated in Advertisement No.19 of 2023 / 24 dated
28.12.2023 published by the OPSC for submission of
examinations (which has been extended subsequently)
shall be further extended by a suitable date so as to give
an opportunity to the candidates who were otherwise
eligible (on account of their age and educational
qualification) as on the last date for applications as
fixed by the State Government / OPSC, to appear in the
GATE examination at least once and submit their
applications along with their valid GATE score if any,
The applications of candidates, but had earlier
appeared in GATE examination (and were otherwise
eligible (on account of their age and educational
qualification) as on the last date for applications as
fixed by the State Government / OPSC shall also be
considered. But the candidates who had not acquired
the necessary educational qualifications or were under
age by the last date earlier fixed by the State
Government / OPSC will not be eligible to apply. This is
to prevent prejudice to the candidates who were
otherwise eligible (due to their educational
qualifications and age) on the last date fixed by the
State Government / OPSC. The applicants who were
eligible as per the terms of the advertisement and had
applied pursuant to such advertisement and whose
applications have been processed in compliance of the
interim order dated 17.03.2024 passed in WP (C)
No.42059 of 2023 and batch, need not apply again."
21. With reference to the observation made in Para-
33 & 36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, also argued that the finding and
reasoning of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above
noted paragraphs recognize and provide an opportunity to
the candidates, like the petitioners who did not get a single
chance after delivery of judgment dated 15.01.2025 to
appear in the GATE examination and to submit a valid
GATE score. He further contended that the rights of the
petitioners. who got profited by judgment dated
15.01.2025, was saved only to the limited extent of the
scope provided vide advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 and
by way of the extension of the last date of making online
application. Moreover, the opportunity provided under
Para-33 & 36 of the judgment is limited to the extent of
only providing a chance to the petitioners to participate in
the GATE examination and to submit their candidature for
recruitment to the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical).
22. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would further argue that the only opportunity
that is available to the petitioners after the judgment of the
Division Bench was pronounced on 15.01.2015 is by
making application in September-October, 2025 to appear
in GATE, 2026. He further contended that in view of the
amendment to Odisha Civil Service(Fixation of Upper
Age Limit), 1989, whereby relaxing of upper age limit up
to 38 years was available up to December, 2024, the
Petitioners, after December, 2024 should be ineligible for
applying for the post of under the Odisha Govt. Thus, the
advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 was saved by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.01.2025. Since all
the petitioners are more than 33 years, for them the
advertisement No.19 of 2023-24 is a last opportunity to
apply for any job under the Govt. of Odisha by virtue of
the amendment to the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of
Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989. He further contended that
unless the petitioners are protected by a suitable interim
order, not only the writ petition would become
infructuous, but also their only hope to enter into Govt.
service would come to an end. At this juncture learned
senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
allowing use of GATE 2026 score could not cause any
prejudice to any of the candidates who had already
obtained a valid GATE score, as such candidates are
already protected by the judgment of the Division Bench
and in view of the observation made in the Para-36 of
judgment dated 15.01.2025.
23. Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12865 of 2025
arising out of I.A. No.7708 of 2025 at the outset contended
that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing
the writ applications with a prayer to quash clause 5 of the
5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 at Annexure-6 to the
writ application and further to direct the Opposite Parties
not to change the eligibility criteria or conditions of the
recruitment process except as directed in the judgment
dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 by
the Hon'ble division bench or, in the alternative, to allow
the petitioners a chance to obtain upgraded/enhanced
GATE score by participating in the subsequent GATE
examination. Along with writ applications, such
petitioners have also filed an I.A. bearing I.A. No.7708 of
2025 to stay the recruitment process till dismissal of the
present writ application.
24. While elaborating the issues involved in the
present writ application, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner contended that the core issue which is
required to be adjudicated in the present writ application is
as to whether the judgment dated 15.01.2025 envisaged
the issue of up-gradation/enhancement of GATE score for
those who are already short-listed for interview in July,
2024 on the basis of the valid GATE score? She further
contended that to answer the aforesaid issue this Court is
required to identify as to who were the petitioners before
the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners before
the Division Bench were a set of candidates who were
eligible as per the age and educational qualification but did
not have a valid GATE score as required under the
amended Rules and the subsequent advertisement. Further,
referring to the Para-33 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025,
she further contended that Hon'ble Division Bench has
held that such candidates should be given at least one
chance to appear in the GATE examination so as to obtain
a valid GATE score which would enable them to
participate in the recruitment process pursuant to
advertisement No.19. It was also held that many
prospective candidates could not have applied due to time
between the introduction of the new rules and the
advertisement. Thus, it was emphatically contended that
the list before the Hon'ble Division Bench was confined to
the prayer of the candidates who did not get any
opportunity to obtain a valid GATE score. In the aforesaid
context, she further argued that the Division Bench in its
observation made in Para-33 did not speak of any
enhancement/up-gradation of the GATE score of the
candidates who have already appeared in interview in
terms of their GATE score as on 26.02.2024.
25. In course of her argument she also referred to
Para-36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 to impress upon
this Court that the Hon'ble Division Bench directed that
the last date should be extended to a suitable date thereby
providing an opportunity to the candidates who have not
appeared in any GATE examination and as such have not
been able to obtain a valid GATE score after the rule was
amended and the advertisement was published in the year
2023. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-36 further
clarified the window had closed for those candidates who
had a valid GATE score and had already appeared in the
interview by giving a specific observation to the extent
that the inclusion of non-GATE people to obtain a valid
GATE score could not take away or scrap the selection
process that has already taken place. Thus, it was argued
that the candidates who had valid GATE score and had
participated in the recruitment process were protected by
the order of the Division Bench and they were required to
do nothing extra. In such view of the matter, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the provision for enhancement/up-gradation of valid
GATE score of the already eligible candidates in terms of
the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is beyond the scope
and purview of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 as no such
direction was given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its
final judgment dated 15.01.2025. Thus, the aforesaid part
of the corrigendum can in no way be related to the
observation of the Hon'ble division bench in Para-33 & 36
of judgment dated 15.01.2025.
26. Furthermore, while drawing attention of this
Court to Para-36 of judgment dated 15.01.2025 and laying
emphasis on the observation of the Hon'ble Division
Bench to the effect that inclusion of non-GATE people to
obtain a valid GATE score could not take away or scrap
the selection process that has already taken place,
contended that the selection process in respect of
candidates other than the non-GATE candidates had
attained finality. Thus, the Hon'ble Division Bench has
demonstrably exempted and has kept such candidates in a
separate category and the selection process in respect of
such candidates has been protected and, as such, it has
attained finality by the stage at which the non-GATE
candidates approached this Court by filing the earlier writ
application.
27. Moreover, the observation of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in Para-33 & 36 of the judgment dated
15.01.2025 speaks about or permits the candidates who are
already having valid GATE score to upgrade/enhance their
existing valid GATE score at the time the advertisement
was protected till submission of the online application
form. In course of her argument she also countered the
arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the
intervenors as well as the State-Opposite Party and the
OPSC to the extent that Para-32 of the judgment by the
Hon'ble division bench permits such enhancement/up-
gradation of the valid GATE score. In the said context, she
further contended that Para-32 makes it clear that it only
clarifies validity of the GATE score as a method of
selection. Rather, at Para-32 of the judgment dated
15.01.2025, the Hon'ble Division Bench justified that the
advertisement cannot be quashed just because GATE score
has been introduced as a method of selection and upheld
that GATE score can be a valid method of selection.
28. Further, in reply to the 5th corrigendum dated
11.04.2025 and as to whether the same is an outcome of
the judgment dated 15.01.2025, and accepting that such 5 th
corrigendum is an outcome of the judgment, whether the
OPSC can introduce a clause which is beyond what is
mentioned in the judgment? The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners contended that the 5th
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 in Para-3 itself clarifies that
the same is an outcome of judgment dated 15.01.2025.
Thus, had the judgment dated 15.01.2025 not existed at
all, the OPSC would never have come up with such
corrigendum. Therefore, it can squarely be concluded that
the corrigendum is an outcome of judgment dated
15.01.2025. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the OPSC
does not have any power to make in changes the
recruitment of condition including allowing the candidates,
who did not have valid GATE score, to apply by
uploading valid GATE scores by obtaining the same in the
subsequent GATE exam. Thus, it was argued that the 5 th
corrigendum is required to stand on the platform of the
judgment dated 15.01.2025, if the same is to be considered
as valid in law. That being the case, no other clause can be
introduced by virtue of a corrigendum while the selection
process is wrong except by the direction of this Court vide
its judgment dated 15.01.2025.
29. In reply to the question as to whether the clause
5 of the 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is in violation of
judgment dated 15.01.2025, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that clause 5 of the
5th corrigendum is an absolutely new condition to the
recruitment while the selection process was on, thereby
providing an opportunity to the candidates who have
already appeared for interview in terms of Annexure-4 to
upload their upgraded or enhanced GATE score.
Moreover, such a benefit or advantage to a particular class
of candidates has not emanated from the judgment dated
15.01.2025. The judgment dated 15.01.2025 is very clear
and specific that the relief granted therein was confined to
the candidates who were otherwise eligible however, they
have failed to obtain the valid GATE score. Thus, the
clause 5 of the 5th corrigendum is not protected/saved by
judgment dated 15.01.2025 and as such the same can very
well be construed to be an action by the OPSC not
supported by law. Moreover, since the same is not
supported by any legal authority, and it provides benefit to
a particular class of candidates resulting in discrimination
to other candidates, it cannot be construed that the same is
not in conformity with the doctrine of level playing field
and no in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
30. With regard to introduction of a new clause in
the shape of clause 5 of 5th corrigendum dated 11.04.2025
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further
argue that the same is contrary to the settle position of law
that rules of the game cannot be changed midway and that
introduction of such a condition violates the rules of the
recruitment. Moreover, even if a rule permits such changes
of recruitment condition, those changes have to be
scrutinized in terms of Article 14. In the aforesaid context,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (12)
SCR 28. Furthermore, with regard to the scope of this
Court as a presiding single judge in subsequent writ
applications, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
referring to the judgment reported in 2016 SCC online
Delhi 4285, contended that in terms of doctrine of stare
decisis as a judicial discipline, a single judge bench of one
High Court is bound by the decision rendered by a division
bench of the same High Court.
31. Per contra, Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor-Opposite
Parties at the outset contended for rejection of the interim
relief sought for by the petitioner. Mr.Mohapatra, learned
senior counsel appearing for the intervenor-Opposite
Parties submitted that they acquired GATE score for the
academic sessions 2021-22. Thereafter, they have applied
for the post of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) pursuant to the
advertisement dated 28.12.2023. He further contended that
the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement is already over and the intervenor-Opposite
Parties are awaiting publication of final result.
32. In course of his argument, Mr. Mohapatra,
learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble division bench in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024 and
made an attempt to lay emphasis on the specific direction
of the Hon'ble Division Bench. While analyzing the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the reading of the aforesaid
judgment as a whole would reveal that the candidates as
sparing to appear GATE examination 2024-25, as a result
of which was to be published by March, 2025, the Hon'ble
High Court directed the OPSC/Government to extend the
period of advertisement only to accommodate those
candidates/applicants. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction
by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the OPSC has come up
with the 5th corrigendum thereby extending the last date of
submission of online application. In such view of the
matter, it was also contended that any extension of the last
date for submission of online application to accommodate
the candidates who are likely to appear in the GATE
examination to be held in February, 2026 would not be in
consonance with a direction of the Hon'ble Division
Bench.
33. Sri. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties
not only vehemently opposed the interim relief as prayed
for by the petitioner, he also prayed for vacation of any
interim order passed in any of the connected matters which
has stalled the recruitment process. While canvasing the
grounds of objection on behalf of the State-Opposite
Parties, the learned Advocate General referred to and
relied upon Para-32, 33 & 36 of the judgment dated
15.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.10185 of 2024
(Chitaranjan Ghadei vs. State of Odisha) and a batch of
similar other writ applications. He would further argue that
while uploading the validity of the amendment Rules,
2023, the Hon'ble division bench had given specific
directions to the Opposite Parties. It is pursuant to those
directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its
common judgment dated 15.01.2025, the Opposite Parties
have come up with a corrigendum which is strictly in
consonance with the direction given by the Hon'ble
Division Bench.
34. In their written note of submission the State-
Opposite Parties have summarized the challenge by the
petitioner to the corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 into two
broader categories. With regard to point No.(a) i.e. fixation
of suitable last date of application as 08.05.2025 ignoring
the GATE result of 2026 by the OPSC, learned Advocate
General for the State-Opposite Parties contended that in
Para-36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025 a direction has
been given to the OPSC to further extend the last date of
submission of online application by a suitable date so as to
give an opportunity to a candidate who were otherwise
eligible but for the GATE score they could not submit
their application form. Thus, it was contended that a clear
opportunity was granted to such candidates who had not
appeared in GATE examination at least once to appear in
the GATE examination, 2025 and submit their application
form.
35. While further elaborating his stance justifying
the fixation of the last date i.e. 08.05.2025, the learned
Advocate General contended that although the
advertisement was published on 28.12.2023 and thereafter
the judgment dated 15.01.2025 having been pronounced
by the Hon'ble Division Bench, a clear opportunity was
provided to the candidates who had never appeared in
GATE examination by permitting them to appear in
GATE, 2025. For GATE, 2025 examination the
application forms were floated way back in
September/October, 2024 and the examination was held in
February, 2025 and the final result was published in
March, 2025. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned
Advocate General submitted that the GATE examination
2025 which took place in February, 2025 occurred after
the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Division Bench on
15.01.2025. Thus, a clear opportunity as directed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench was given to the candidates who
had not appeared in GATE examination at least once.
36. Furthermore, while opposing the prayer for any
interim relief to the petitioners, learned Advocate General
for the State-Opposite Parties contended that several
thousands of posts of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical) are
lying vacant at the moment. He further submitted that
presence of such vacancy positions is alarming and the
same is affecting the developmental work in the State of
Odisha. Moreover, considering the fact that a large number
of engineering graduates have remained unemployed in the
State of Odisha, the Govt. of Odisha has taken a conscious
decision to fill up the vacant posts of Engineer as
expeditiously as possible by following a fair and
transparent recruitment procedure.
37. In reply to Point No.(b). He further submitted
that in view of the observation made in Para-32 of
judgment dated 15.01.2025 to the effect that a candidate
may appear every year in GATE examination and improve
his/her score which is an option available to the candidate.
In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, the Opposite Party-OPSC has not
committed any illegality in coming out with the impugned
corrigendum. At this juncture, learned Advocate General
further submitted that keeping in view the observations
made by the Hon'ble division bench and the directions
given in Para-32 & 36 of the judgment dated 15.01.2025,
the Opposite Party-OPSC has not only extended the last
date of submission of the application form for those
candidates who had not appeared in GATE examination at
least once, they have also provided an opportunity to the
candidates whose applications are valid to
upgrade/enhance and to submit their latest GATE score.
Thus, it was argued that the conduct of the State-Opposite
Parties as well as the OPSC is in conformity with the
principle as enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India.
38. Mr. Arnab Behera, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Odisha Public Service Commission adopted
the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties.
Additionally, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC
contended that the recruitment process was initiated by the
OPSC pursuant to the request of the State Government and
the same is continuing strictly in terms of Odisha
Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2023. The
constitutional validity of the aforesaid Rules has already
been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
vide its common judgment dated 15.01.2025. He also
reiterated the argument advanced by the learned Advocate
General that it is pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in its common judgment dated 15.01.2025,
that the OPSC has issued the impugned corrigendum. He
further submitted that in terms of the direction contained in
Para-36, the candidates who had not appeared in the
GATE at least once have been given an opportunity by
extending the last date for submission of online application
form. Thus, it was emphatically contended on behalf of the
Opposite Parties a reasonable opportunity to appear in the
GATE examination had been granted by extending the last
date of submission of form. Thus, the OPSC has not
committed any illegality on this score.
39. Mr. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the
OPSC, next emphasized that those candidates who had
already submitted their application form and were
participating in their recruitment process also appeared in
the GATE 2025 examination. In the aforesaid context he
further submitted that it would have been unfair to those
candidates had they not been given an opportunity to
submit their upgraded/enhanced GATE score which was
acquired by them by appearing in GATE 2025
examination. Had such opportunity being not granted to
such candidates, the same would have caused prejudice to
those candidates and in such eventuality, the conduct of
the OPSC would have been considered in violation of the
principles contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution
of India. The aforesaid submission was made in the
background fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench had
directed that the candidates who are having the GATE
score and have already submitted their application by not
required to apply again. Therefore, such candidates would
have been deprived of an opportunity to submit their
enhanced GATE score had the corrigendum issued by the
OPSC not given them that opportunity. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the OPSC contended that the
OPSC has not committed any illegality in issuing the
corrigendum.
40. On a careful analysis of the factual background
of the present case, the submissions made by learned
senior counsels as well as other counsels representing both
sides, further keeping in view the common judgment dated
15.01.2025 rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this
Court prima facie observes that the validity of the
corrigendum is to be tested on two counts-
(a) whether the fixation of the last date for
submission of application form on 08.05.2025 is
just, fair and valid and that the same is in
consonance with the direction of the Hon'ble
division bench vide its common judgment dated
15.01.2025?
(b) Whether the conduct of the OPSC in
granting an opportunity to the candidates who
have already submitted their application form to
submit their upgraded/enhanced GATE score on
the basis of the GATE 2025 examination is valid
in law and the same is covered by the common
judgment dated 15.01.2025?
41. This Court further observes that the petitioners
have approached this Court with a prayer to provide them
an opportunity to appear at least once in the GATE
examination pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble
Division Bench vide its common judgment dated
15.01.2025. The case of the petitioner is that although the
Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-32 & 36 of the judgment
have given a clear direction to provide an opportunity to
the candidates who have not appeared in GATE
examination at least once by extending the last date of
submission of application form, the Opposite Parties have
fixed the last date as 08.05.2025 thereby the depriving the
petitioners to appear in the GATE exam at least once to
make themselves eligible to participate in the recruitment
process pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.2025.
42. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsels
appearing for the petitioners further contended that the last
date for submissions of application to appear in GATE
2025 examination was over by September/October, 2024.
In the meantime the common judgment dated 15.01.2025
was delivered by the Division Bench directing the
Opposite Parties to give an opportunity to the petitioners.
However, the window to appear in GATE 2025 was closed
by them. Thus, the petitioners could not take advantage of
the relief granted to them by the Hon'ble Division Bench
and that effectively no examination of GATE was
conducted by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to
participate in such examination after judgment dated
15.01.2025 was pronounced by the Hon'ble Division
Bench. It was emphatically argued by the learned Senior
Counsels appearing for the petitioners that most of the
petitioners would become age-barred in the event they are
compelled to appear in the subsequent recruitment process
as in the meantime they have all exceeded the upper age
limit fixed for entry into the government service and that
the relaxation of upper age limit granted by virtue of the
notification in the year 2022 could not be applicable to
them if they are asked to appear in any recruitment process
pursuant to a subsequent advertisement. Thus, it was
argued that the present recruitment process is practically
the last opportunity for the petitioners to participate in the
recruitment process for appointment to the post of A.E.E.
(Civil & Mechanical).
43. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties and intervenors on the other hand contended that
the next GATE examination is likely to take place in
February, 2026. Therefore, the State-Opposite Parties
cannot be asked to wait till February, 2026 to fill up the
vacancies which are large in number. Moreover, it was
also argued that such delay in filling up the post of
engineer in the State of Odisha would be against the larger
public interest as such vacancies are likely to affect the
pace of developmental works that have been carried out in
the State of Odisha. It was also argued on behalf of the
Opposite Parties that the petitioners could have appeared in
GATE 2025 which had taken place after the judgment of
the Hon'ble division bench on 15.01.2025. Additionally, it
was contended that the petitioners choose not to appear in
GATE 2025. Therefore, they cannot blame either the State-
Opposite Parties or the OPSC for their failure to appear in
GATE 2025. Moreover, giving a long rope to the
petitioners in the process of recruitment would cause
serious prejudice to the other candidates who are otherwise
eligible and have already submitted their application and
have undergone the process of recruitment in the
meantime.
44. The questions that falls for determination in the
present writ application can only be adjudicated after filing
of the counter affidavit by the State-Opposite Parties as
well as the Odisha Public Service Commission. Further, It
also requires interpretation of the direction of the Hon'ble
Division Bench vide its common judgment dated
15.01.2025 to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners in the
present writ application which is to be tested in the light of
the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-
32 & 36 of the common judgment dated 15.01.2025.
Keeping in view the additional fact that the present
recruitment process would be the last opportunity for the
petitioners to apply for any government job as they have
already become age-barred in the meantime and the
previous rule incorporating certain changes in the
recruitment process, i.e. by incorporating the GATE score
as a eligibility criteria, and no recruitment process have
been taken place for recruitment of A.E.E. in government
service for last several years, this Court is of the view that
the claim of the petitioners is to be tested with utmost
seriousness and sincerity and keeping in view the judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 15.01.2025.
45. In view of the aforesaid analysis of this Court,
further keeping in view the stands taken by both sides and
keeping in view the larger public interest involved in the
selection and recruitment of engineers in government
service, this Court, while maintaining a balance and while
protecting the interest of the petitioners, deems it proper to
pass an interim order which would not cause any prejudice
to the candidates who are involved in the present batch of
writ applications. Accordingly, while directing the
Opposite Party-OPSC to continue with the recruitment
process for appointment of A.E.E. (Civil & Mechanical)
and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, this
Court further directs that a post befitting to the
qualification of each of the Petitioners in the present batch
of writ applications shall not be filled up till the next date.
This common order would cover all interim applications
that have been filed praying for interim relief, in the
connected batch of writ applications.
46. Accordingly, the I.As. stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) Nos.12381, 12114 & 12865 of 2025
47. List this matter in the week commencing 7th July,
2025. In the meantime, the Opposite Parties are directed to
file their counter affidavit after serving a copy thereof on
learned counsels appearing on the State.
48. Rejoinder affidavit if any be filed in the meantime.
49. Considering the urgency of the matter, the parties
are directed to cooperate with the Court for an early
disposal of the present writ application by completing their
respective pleadings in the meantime.
(A.K.Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
