Orissa High Court
Shakti Prasad Kar vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opp. Parties on 29 October, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.8800 of 2023
Shakti Prasad Kar ... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opp. Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
Mr. P.K Mohanty, Sr.
Adv.(for O.P No.4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.10.2025
Order No.
14. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:
It is therefore humbly prayed before this Hon'ble
Court that in view of the above mentioned facts &
circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to issue appropriate Writ (s)
/Order(s)/Direction(s)/Declaration under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and more particularly:
1. Quash the advertisement no. no.MPP& R-05/2023
dtd.27.01.2023 (Annexure 12) floated by the Odisha
Power Transmission Corporation Limited for
recruitment of Junior Management trainee
(electrical).
2. Direct the opposite party no.2 to allow the
Petitioner to discharge his duties as it existed on
29.07.2022 and conduct a special recruitment test in
respect of the petitioner as per the proposal
submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court and as per
the direction of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.
18563 of 2022, instead of requiring him to
participate with freshers.
3. Pass such other order/ direction/declaration/
Writ (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper in the
interest of Justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the Petitioner as in
duty bound."
4. It is contended that Petitioner was earlier before this
Court in W.P.(C ) No.18563 of 2022 challenging the
Advertisement issued by the Corporation on
04.01.2022 inter alia on the ground that such an
advertisement has not been issued in terms of the
proposal given by the Corporation before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8415 of 2017.
4.1. It is contended that this Court taking into
account the proposal submitted by the Corporation in
Civil Appeal No.8415 of 2017, while interfering with the
earlier Advertisement directed the Corporation to allow
the Petitioner to participate in future recruitment
process, strictly in terms of the proposal submitted by
the Corporation before the Apex Court. The view
expressed by this Court in para-21 of the order reads
as follows:
21. This Court after going through the same finds
that even though pursuant to the proposal
submitted by the Corporation, which was accepted
by the Hon'ble Apex Court while disposing Civil
Appeal No.8415 of 2017, the Corporation have
issued the two advertisements in question on
25.08.2018 and 04.01.2022, but as per the
considered view of this Court, the said
advertisements are not in terms of the proposal
submitted by the Corporation before the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Since the Corporation in its proposal
clearly indicated that on coming out successful in
the selection process, the petitioners herein will be
engaged on regular basis, this court finds that there
is no such stipulation in both the advertisements.
This Court This Court finds that in both the
advertisements, the successful candidates have to
undergo the required training for one year with the
rider that during such continuance of the training,
the candidate can be terminated without any notice
or reason. further finds that in both the
advertisements, there is a stipulation that even after
completing the training successfully, the
Corporation is not bound to provide the
candidates/petitioners. regular appointment to
Therefore, it is the view of this Court that both the
advertisements which are impugned in the writ
petitions have not been issued in terms of the
proposal submitted by the Corporation in Civil
Appeal No.8415 of 2017. With regard to the stand
taken by the Corporation that the petitioners since
have participated in the selection process, they
cannot challenge such advertisement after such
participation, it is the view of this Court that since
OPTCL has not issued the advertisements, in terms
of the proposal submitted before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, placing reliance on the decisions cited by Mr.
Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, it cannot be
held that due to such participation in the selection
process, the petitioners are debarred to challenge
the advertisement. This Court further finds that
when the first advertisement was issued by the
Corporation on 25.08.2018, the petitioners in W.P.
(C)No.17268 of 2018, though submitted
representation on 03.10.2018 with the prayer not to
proceed with the selection process prior to regular
appointment in terms of the said proposal, but no
decision was taken on such plea of the petitioners
and the petitioners though took part in the selection
process, but in view of the illegality apparent on the
face of such advertisement, the petitioners cannot be
debarred from challenging the same. Similar is also
the case with regard to the advertisement issued by
the Corporation on 04.01.2022. Since the petitioners
were appointed on contract basis by facing a
selection process in terms of the Boards Resolution
dated 15.03.2005 and they are continuing for more
than 17 years, the stipulations contained in the
advertisement with regard to undergoing the period
of one year training with other conditions mentioned
in both the advertisements, as per the view of this
Court are not in consonance with the proposal
submitted and accepted by the advertisements, this
Court is inclined to interfere with the selection
process taken up by the Corporation basing on those
two advertisements. While interfering with the same,
this Court held that the petitioners be given an
opportunity to participate in a selection process,
strictly in terms of the proposal submitted by OPTCL
and accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.8415 of 2017. In such recruitment test to
be conducted by the Corporation, no such riders be
there with regard to undergoing the training and
absorption in service after completion of the
training. The Corporation is directed to conduct a
test strictly in terms of the proposal accepted by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that pursuant to such order passed by this
Court in its order under Annexure-11, while issuing
the impugned advertisement on 27.01.2023 under
Annexure-12, similar stipulation was made as like the
earlier advertisement which was interfered with by this
Court in its order under Annexure-11.
4.3. Taking this Court into the provisions
contained in the advertisement, it is contended that
similar stipulation was made that a candidate has to
undergo training for a period of 1(one) year and he can
be terminated without any notice or without assigning
any reason thereof. It is accordingly contended that in
view of incorporation of such stipulation in the
advertisement and the same being not in accordance
with the proposal submitted before the Apex Court, the
impugned advertisement requires interference of this
Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner taking this Court to the stipulation
contained in the self-same advertisement contended
that while issuing the impugned advertisement under
Annexure-12, a stipulation was made that the selection
process will be taken up strictly in terms of the
proposal submitted by the Corporation before the Apex
Court and in terms of the judgment dt.18.11.2022 of
this Court. Stipulation contained in Para-12(1 & 2 ) of
the advertisement reads as follows:
12. PROVISION FOR OUTSOURCED CANDIDATES
1. The Petitioners of WPC No. 6355 of 2022, WPC
No. 4914 of 2022 and WPC No, 18563 of 2022
shall be allowed to participate in the selection
process strictly in terms of the proposal submitted
by OPTCL and accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal No 8415 of 2017. (This is as per
the Judgment dated 18.11.2022 of Hon'ble
High Court of Orissa in the above Writ
Petitions)
2. The persons provided by the manpower service
providers/outsourcing agencies, for similar nature
of jobs in OPTCL, who shall be less than 45 years
of age and shall have completed at least 1 (One)
year of continuous service as on 01.01.2023 and
continuing in OPTCL till date, in case they apply,
shall be allowed relaxation of upper age limit for
entry, provided they satisfy all other eligibility
criteria for the post. They shall be allowed one
percent (1%) extra marks on the total marks of the
CBT for each completed year of continuous service
subject to a maximum of fifteen percent, which
shall be added to the marks secured by them in
CBT for deciding the merit position.
5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner
participated in the selection process and has failed to
qualify, there was no occasion to consider his case in
the light of the judgment passed under Annxure-11.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, considering the submission made and the fact
that Petitioner in terms of the impugned advertisement
has failed to qualify and this Court also finds that the
selection process has been undertaken in terms of the
proposal given by the Corporation before the Apex
Court and in terms of judgment dt.18.11.2022 under
Annexure-11, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the process of selection so held pursuant to the
impugned advertisement dtd.27.01.2023 under
Annexure-12 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:53:38
