Orissa High Court
Shakti Prasad Mishra And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29894 of 2022
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India
Shakti Prasad Mishra and others .... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Addl. Govt.
Advocate (for O.P. Nos.1, 3 & 5)
Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Advocate
(for O.P. No.2)
Mr. Durga Prasad Pattnaik, Advocate
(for O.P. No.4)
Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos.6 to 15)
Mr. Sourav Das, Advocate for
intervenors- O.P. Nos.16 to 21
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of hearing : 19.08.2025 & 21.08.2025
Date of Judgement : 31.10.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO:
The subject matter of the writ petition is challenge
to advertisement dated 02.11.2022 issued by the Odisha
Staff Selection Commission-opposite party no.2(OSSC-
O.P. No.2) for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Training officer (ATO) in Government Industrial Training
Institutes (ITIs) under Combined Technical Services
Recruitment Examination for Group-B posts/services, for
various Departments of Govt. of Odisha. The last date of
online application was 10.12.2022. At Sl. No.7 of the
advertisement for recruitment is the impugned
recruitment for the post of ATO indicated, as per the
following details:
Name of the Name of the Department Total Classificatio Level of
Sl.No Post/Service in which vacancy exists No. of n of posts Pay
for this recruitment. vacanc
y
17 Assistant Training Director of Technical 217 Group-B Level-9
Officer Education & Training
(Rs.35,400-
1,12,400
2. All the petitioners have stated to be working as Part
Time Guest Instructors (PTGIs) in the Government ITIs.
They have further stated that they have completed more
than fifteen years of service and their case for
regularization against the existing vacancies was not
considered by the Government. They had approached the
Odisha Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) for a
direction for regularization against the existing regular
vacancies almost 10 years earlier to filing of the writ
petition, i.e. in the year around 2012.
3. The further fact not in dispute is that the
Government of Odisha in the Department of Skill
Development and Technical Education vide circular dated
23.06.2016 notified and circulated the 'Amendment of
Guidelines, terms & conditions to be followed for
recruitment of contractual ATOs for ITIs. By the said
notification, the Government approved the revised draft
guidelines, terms and conditions for advertisement and
recruitment of regular/contractual ATOs in various ITIs
and Skill Development Centres (SDCs) as submitted by
the Director, Technical Education and Training, Odisha.
4. The said notification dated 23.06.2016 has provided
in Paragraph-2 ten years age relaxation to PTGIs, who are
already working in different Government ITIs. Obviously
the petitioners-PTGIs are not aggrieved by grant of such
relaxation, but they are aggrieved by the qualification and
experience prescribed in the notification dated
23.06.2016 required for competing in the selection
process for ATOs. Clause-3 of the notification dated
23.06.2016 (supra) provides the required qualification
and experience for participating in the selection process
of ATOs; Paragraph-4(c)(iii) provides mandatory teaching
experience.
5. The challenge in the writ petition is mainly against
the condition that the participants intending to
participate in the selection process for ATOs should have
CITS qualification. CITS stands for Craft Instructors
Training Scheme (CITS) qualification, under the aegis of
National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), New
Delhi. The requirement of CITS qualification, which has
been taken exception to by the petitioners and is
challenged is mentioned at paragraph-4.B of
advertisement and is reproduced herein :
"4.B. The Career Assessment :
i. 60% weightage fixed for marks secured in
relevant technical qualifications i.e.
Degree/Diploma or CTS out of 60 marks.
ii. 30% weightage fixed for marks secured in
Craft Instructors Training Scheme (CITS)
qualification under the aegis of NCVT, New
Delhi to ensure that CITS passed
candidates are engaged as Instructors out
of 30 marks.
(N.B: Career assessment is based on guidelines
of GoI/MoSDE vide letter No.19/03(08)/2015-CD
dated 07.01.2016)."
6. It is further indicated at paragraph-6.2 of the
advertisement and is reproduced herein:
"(6.2) Training:
(6.2.1) Craft Instructors Training:
(a) Each of the Engineering trade/non-
engineering trade Contractual ATO if not CITS
trained shall have to undergo Semester pattern
Craft Instructor's Training Scheme (CITS) within
the period of Contractual engagement in any field
Institute of the Directorate General of Training,
Government of India/Institutes for Training of
Trainers (IToTs) affiliated to NCVT, New Delhi as
would be deputed by the Director of Technical
Education and Training, Odisha in phased
manner as per GoI/MoLE letter No.DGET-
19/07/02/2014-CD dated 26.05.2014, letter No
MSDE-19/7/2/2014-CD dated 21.09.2015 and
other prevailing guidelines of State and Central
Government.
(b) The Director of Technical Education and
Training, Odisha, Cuttack shall phase out the
training of all Contractual ATOs and left out
regular ATOs without dislocation of the training
activities in ITIs.
(d) The Regular/Contractual ATOs already in
possession of Crafts Instructor's Training
Certificate under the aegis of NCVT, New Delhi at
the time of their recruitment shall be exempted
from such training."
7. Initially the writ petition was assignment of the
learned Single Judge and was taken up upto 21.11.2023.
Thereafter it was listed before Division Bench as per the
assignment, the relevant extract, i.e., paragraph-8 of the
order dated 21.11.2023 is reproduced herein:
"8. Since the petitioners have challenged the
virus of the Odisha Combined Technical
Services Recruitment Examination-2022, the
matter is required to be placed before the
appropriate Division Bench. However, despite
the order dated 21.08.2023 to place the matter
before the appropriate assigned Bench, the
matter is again listed before this Court." (sic)
8. We have heard extensively and at considerable
length, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mallik,
Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2-Odisha Staff Selection Commission and Mr.
Biswabihari Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Intervenors. Mr. Sourav Das, learned counsel appearing
for some of the Intervenors was also heard and we also
heard Mr. Durga Prasad Pattnaik, learned CGC
appearing for Union of India.
9. Notices were issued by order dated 15.11.2022 by
the then assigned Bench of learned Single Judge,
thereafter the following interim order was passed.
Paragraph-4 of interim order dated 27.01.2023 passed in
I.A. No.538 of 2023 is reproduced:
"4. As an interim measure, the corrigendum
issued by opposite party no.2 on 04.01.2023, to
the Advertisement No.6506/OSSC dated
02.11.2022 under Annexure-1 to the I.A. shall
not be given effect to, till 03.02.2023."
10. The interim order dated 27.01.2023 was recalled by
order dated 25.04.2023 in I.A. No. 3120 of 2023 by
another assigned Single Bench and paragraph-8 of the
said order modifying the earlier order is reproduced
herein:
"8. After hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Das learned counsel for
the State and Mr. S.N. Patnaik learned counsel
appearing for the OSSC, this Court is of the
considered view that the present writ
application is confined to the Assistant Training
Officer post and the eligibility condition
prescribed for selection and appointment to
such post. In such view of the matter the interim
order on 27.01.2023 is recalled. The OSSC-
opposite party no.2 shall proceed with the
selection process. However, so far the selection
process to the Assistant Training Officer is
concerned, the final select list shall not be
published without the leave of this Court."
11. Thereafter by order dated 21.08.2023 the Single
Bench allowed the prayer made by the petitioners in I.A.
No.12484 of 2023 as the petitioners sought for
amendment of the pleadings and prayer. Amended prayer
was challenge to the vires of the Rules, namely,
"Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination
Rules, 2022" (in short the 'Rules 2022') notified vide the
Government of Odisha, General Administration and
Pension Grievance Department notification dated
26.10.2022.
By another order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A. No.13063
of 2023 the interim order was further modified to the
extent as quoted herein :
"5.In such view of the matter, the interim order
dated 25.04.2023 is modified to the extent that
the result shall be published, however 9 posts of
Assistant Training Officer (ATO) pursuant to the
advertisement under Annexure-2 shall not be
filled up till the next date."
12. Thereafter since the amendment was challenge to
the vires of the 2022 Rules, the matter was placed before
the assigned Division Bench by order dated 06.12.2023
of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice in the Administrative
side. The matter was heard by us on 19.08.2025 and
thereafter on 21.08.2025. After hearing of the matter on
19.08.2025, it was brought to our notice that as per the
interim order passed earlier, 9 posts were kept vacant for
appointment to the post of ATOs though the
advertisement is dated 02.11.2022. The Rules 2022 were
annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-3 in the
amended cause title dated 03.09.2023. The amended
prayer as included on 03.09.2023 is reproduced herein :
(I) Quash the impugned advertisement as at
Annexure-2 in so far it relates to the post of
ATOs in Govt. it is, the terms of advertisement
being contrary to the terms prescribed by the
Govt. of Odisha and NCVT.
(II) Direct/order that fresh advertisement
shall be published for recruitment to the post of
ATOs prescribing the qualification and
experience in terms of the guidelines and NCVT
norms.
(III) Declare/Hold that the "Combined
Technical Services Recruitment Examination
Rules, 2022" under annexure-3 is ultra-vires
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set
aside the same.
(IV) Direct/Order that the post of ATOs shall
be excluded from the purview of the "Combined
Technical Services Recruitment Examination
Rules, 2022" and separate recruitment test
shall be made for the post of ATOs in terms of
the Circular dated 23.06.2016 and the NCVT
guideline under annexure-1."
Further by amendment the candidates those were
selected were also impleaded as opposite parties.
13. The provision of the notification dated 26th October,
2022 under challenge is indicated herein for convenience
of reference:
4. Eligibility Conditions.- Subject to other
provisions of this rule in order to be eligible for
direct recruitment, a candidate must-
(a) be a candidate must be a citizen of India;
(b) have a minimum educational qualification
and experience as prescribed in the relevant
Recruitment Rule or Government Resolution
noted in Column (3) of the Schedule-1:"
SCHEDULE-I
Sl.No. Name of the Post Recruitment Rules or
Resolution or
Executive Instruction
2. Assistant Training Guidelines issued by
Officer under the SD & TE
Director Technical Department vide
Education & letter No.5304/
Training. SDTE dated
30.11.2021.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that as provided in Schedule-I (above) the
guidelines issued by the SD & TE Department
notification dated 30.11.2021 has been made applicable.
Therefore, the subsequent guideline dated 18.12.2021
issued by the SD & TE Department and the CTSRE
Rules, 2022 notified vide G.A. & P.G. Department
notification dated 26.10.2022 shall not be applicable. The
advertisement for recruitment is silent about the teaching
experience though they have benefit of age relaxation but
their teaching experience should also have been given
preference which has not been done. It is further stated
and submitted that the stipulated conditions for selection
are not as per NCVT norms. The fresh candidates have
been shown 'undue favour' by not giving weightage to
experience of the petitioners who have been working for
more than 10 years. There is no necessity for
promulgating another statutory Rule for the purpose of
direct recruitment to notified vacancies such as CTSRE
Rules 2022. It is contended that to follow the existing
Rule would mean the Government of Odisha Circular
dated 23.06.2016, i.e., Amendment of Guidelines, terms
and conditions to be followed for recruitment of
contractual ATOs for ITIs issued by SD & TE Department
and not the CTSRE Rules, 2022. Further, relying on the
2022 Rules Schedule-I, it is contended that the
guidelines issued by the SD & TE Department dated
30.11.2021 should be the guiding factor for recruitment
and not the rules.
14. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. S.N. Pattnaik appearing
for the opposite party no.2-OSSC relied on the counter
affidavit dated 04.02.2023 to contend that the writ petition
is devoid of any merit and should be rejected in limine and
the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
To elaborate it is argued by Mr. Pattnaik that working
as Part Time Guest Instructor cannot be a distinguishing
factor for granting preference to the petitioners. The
petitioners have relied on the earlier guidelines of the Skill
Development and Technical Education Department of the
year 2016, whereas, the said guidelines have been revised
by notification/letter dated 30.11.2021 of Skill Development
and Technical Education Department. Further it is
contended the statutory rule i.e. CTSRE Rules, 2022 issued
by the State Government, GA and PG Department
notification dated 26.10.2022 now occupies the field and
the advertisement clearly stipulates that recruitment is to
be conducted as per the conditions laid down in the Rules,
2022.
It is submitted the Rules have superseded the earlier
letter No.23.06.2016. Therefore, the reliance of the
petitioners on the 2016 Rules is misconceived to say the
least.
It is stated and submitted that 10 years age relaxation
has been granted taking note of the grievance of the
petitioners/ PTGIs having general, technical and CITs
qualification. The petitioners cannot plead that the
statutory requirements of any rule to be discriminatory as
the requirement is part of the statutory mandate.
15. The opposite party no.1-State represented through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Skill
Development and Technical Education, Opposite party no.3-
Director of Technical Education and Training, Odisha have
filed their counter dated 07.02.2023. In counter to the writ
petition, of the opposite parties no.1 and 3, the case is that
earlier the original applications filed by the
petitioners/persons situated similar to the petitioners i.e.
PTGIs were transferred to this Court upon abolition of
Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The Original Applications
were renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.2480/2015 and
WPC(OAC) No.3237/2016 and disposed of by judgment
dated 12.11.2021 The copy of the judgment dated
12.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ
petition is enclosed to the Counter. It is submitted that after
the judgment of this Court dated 12.11.2021 (supra) which
has attained finality the petitioners cannot re-agitate the
self-same cause after dismissal of the earlier writ petitions.
The advertisement dated 02.11.2022 specifically gives
10 years age relaxation in case of PTGIs. The SD & TE
Department office letter/notification dated 17.05.2022
supersedes all the earlier guidelines regarding recruitment
to the post of Assistant Training Officer.
It is contended thereafter, the rules have come into
force i.e. CTSRE Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 27.10.2022 being
published in the Gazette. Rule 8 of the Rules 2022 takes
care of the situation as it explicitly provides for overriding
effect on all the recruitment rules/resolution/executive
instructions/orders issued by the Administrative
Departments governing the method of recruitment
procedure.
16. The candidates who are successful and have been
arrayed as opposite parties in the representative capacity
have filed counter through opposite party no.5 on behalf of
opposite parties no.5 to 14. They have vehemently opposed
the prayer of the petitioners to grant special treatment to
the 9 (nine) petitioners. It is contended that the Rules 2022
is as per the competence under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India read with the Article 162 of the
Constitution. It is contended that educational qualification
i.e. the requirement of CITs cannot be relaxed for the
petitioners and that would itself be discriminatory. The
candidates who intend to compete for the recruitment and
already working as ATOs have been given 10 years age
relaxation. The reliance of State-Opposite parties no.1 and 3
and the OSSC (Opposite party no.2) on the recruitment
rules is just and proper. The guideline dated 30.11.2021
read with the Rules 2022 make the selection process
transparent, just and fair, therefore, no interference is
called for as prayed by the petitioners.
17. Regarding the present status of the recruitment and
the vacancies, after hearing on 19.08.2025 as we have
indicated above, we directed the opposite parties to file their
response. The learned Additional Government Advocate filed
memo dated 21.08.2025 enclosing office letter dated
20.08.2025 from the office of the opposite party no.3(DTET,
Odisha). The relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced
herein.
"Earlier, the OSSC, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the
Recruiting Agency was requested vide this office letter
No.11929 dt. 13.09.2022 to recommend 217 nos. of
candidates for appointment against the post of ATO.
As per direction of the Hon'ble Court vide order dt.
21.11.2023, the OSSC, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the
recruiting Agency after keeping 14 post of ATOs
reserved for the petitioners (09 nos. of post of ATOs
against WPC No.29894/2022 and 05 nos. of post of
ATOs against the WPC No.30062/2022) and
recommended 203 nos. of selected candidates for
appointment. Accordingly, the 191 nos. candidates
were given appointment as against the post of ATOs
under the disposal of DTE&T, Odisha."
The affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2-OSSC
also states that 12 posts are kept vacant in obedience to
Court's order in W.P.(C) No.29894 of 2022 and W.P.(C)
No.30062 of 2022. The said affidavit further indicates that
two posts of ATO for 'Mechanic Motor Vehicle' and 'Sign
Language Interpreter' remain vacant due to non-availability
of eligible candidates. The Additional affidavit filed on behalf
of opposite parties no.6 to 15 also agrees with the statistics
furnished by opposite parties no.1 and 3 and opposite party
no.2. It indicates that 171 newly recruited ATOs have joined
under the opposite party no.2-DTE&T and they have been
given posting by office order dated 21.01.2024.
Analysis and Reasons
18. The legislature/executive is well within its competence
to enact the Rules 2022. The power is relatable to the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The
CTSRE Rules, 2022 expressly supersedes earlier rules,
regulations, orders, instructions with regard to the subject
matter except as respect things done or omitted to be done
before such supersession. The preamble of the Rules 2022
is reproduced herein.
"In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in
supersession of any Rules or Regulation or Orders or
Instructions except as respect things done or omitted to
be done before such supersession, the Governor of
Odisha is pleased to make the following rules to
regulate the procedure of recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to different posts and
services in the State Government."
19. The schedule-I of the Rule makes the guideline dated
30.11.2021 applicable to the recruitment of ATOs and in
our view the guideline dated 30.11.2021 has been made
statutorily applicable. Rule 3 of the Rules 2022 is
reproduced herein.
"3. Direct Recruitment. - Appointment to Services or
Posts mentioned in Column (2) of Schedule-I which are
required to be filled up by direct recruitment as per the
provisions under the relevant recruitment Rules or
Resolutions as mentioned in column (3) thereof shall,
notwithstanding anything contrary in such Rules or
Regulations, be made in order of merit from out of the
candidates recommended by the Commission:
Provided that the Government may include any
service or Posts in Schedule-I for regulating direct
recruitment to that Service or Posts or exclude any
Service or Posts from Schedule-I by notification in the
official Gazette"
20. The wisdom of the legislature/executive requiring
'CITS' training cannot be faulted with inasmuch as it is
within their domain to prescribe a particular qualification.
The guidelines for selection of Initial Appointee Assistant
Training Officers (IAATOS) provides for the CITS
examination to be relevant for selection as indicated below.
"4.b.(iv) Method of recruitment;
(a) The main examination which will be conducted by the
Commission shall comprise 'Trade Skill Examination'
and English language test of 150 marks weightage,
Career Assessment of Craft Instructor Training Scheme
(CITS) for 20 marks weightage and Viva-Voce Test for 20
marks weightage, of total 190 marks."
4. B. The Career Assessment: - 20 marks
i. 20 marks shall be awarded by the Commission to the
candidates who has possessed Craft Instructors
Training Scheme (CITS) examination final pass certificate
under the aegis of NCVT in the relevant trade."
21. A similar prayer made by the PTGIs has been earlier
rejected by judgments dated 12.11.2021 in WPC (OAC)
No.2480/2025 (All Odisha Govt. I.T.I. Part-Time Guest
Instructor's Association & others v. Director General of
Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Govt. of India & others) and WPC(OAC) No.3237 of 2026
(All Odisha Govt. I.T.I. Part-Time Guest Instructor's
Association & others v. State of Orissa & others) when the
petitioners and other similarly situated persons had sought
for regularization.
22. The qualification prescribed, CITS has been made
uniformly applicable and there is no intelligible differentia
between the petitioners and other candidates for not
applying the said notification/eligibility condition to the
petitioners in the writ petition. The availability of candidates
having CITS qualification is evident from the fact that as
many as 171 candidates have been recruited as per the
advertisement dated 02.11.2022 issued by the opposite
party no.2(Odisha Staff Selection Commission) and have got
appointment/posted by the opposite party no.3-DTET, office
letter dated 20.01.2024. We may reiterate the government is
vested with the authority to prescribe qualification for
recruitment of any post under the Government
establishment.
23. In All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State
of Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealt with entitlement of incumbent
lecturers/Assistant Professors to benefit of revised pay scale
in terms of 6th Central Pay Commission. In the context of
scope of judicial review of prescription of essential
qualification of Ph.D. by AICTE, it was held (paragraphs-31,
32, 33 and 34 of SCC Online Print).
"31.Aicte which is an expert body mandated by
law, inter alia, to prescribe essential qualifications
for a teaching post, and hence we cannot question
the logic and wisdom of this expert body which
prescribes the essential qualifications for these
posts. No one has challenged such a qualification,
which is PhD in the present case, on the ground that
it should not have been made an essential
qualification. Further in the present case, the law
not only prescribes qualifications but also gives the
consequences of not having these qualifications. We
find nothing arbitrary in such prescriptions.
32. This Court time and again has reiterated that
the responsibility, of fixing qualifications for
purposes of appointment, promotion, etc. of staff or
qualifications for admissions, is that of expert
bodies (in the present case, Aicte), and so long as
qualifications prescribed are not shown to be
arbitrary or perverse, the courts will not interfere.
33. In Aicte v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan
[Aicte v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, (2009) 11 SCC
726 : 3 SCEC 520] , this Court while dealing with
the question regarding decision taken
by Aicte whether a bridge course should be
permitted to make diploma-holders eligible for
engineering course, observed as under : (SCC p.
732, paras 15-17)
"15. ... Aicte consists of professional and
technical experts in the field of education
qualified and equipped to decide on those
issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them
to decide these matters.
16. The courts are neither equipped nor have
the academic or technical background to
substitute themselves in place of statutory
professional technical bodies and take
decisions in academic matters involving
standards and quality of technical education.
...
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on
education and the role of courts are well
defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of
educational policy or an issue involving
academic matter, the courts keep their hands
off. If any provision of law or principle of law
has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with
reference to or connected with education, the
courts will step in."
34. In other words, normally, courts should not
interfere with the decisions taken by expert
statutory bodies regarding academic matter : may it
relate to qualification for admission of students or
qualification required by teachers for appointment,
salary, promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale,
etc. However, this does not mean that courts are
deprived of their powers of judicial review. It only
means that courts must be slow in interfering with
the opinion of experts in regard to academic
standards and powers of judicial review should only
be exercised in cases where prescribed qualification
or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves
interpretation of any principle of law [Also see
: Medical Council of India v. Sarang [Medical Council
of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427 : 5 SCEC 183].
Consequently, where a candidate does not possess
the minimum qualifications, prescribed by an expert
body, for appointment or promotion to a particular
post in an educational institution, such a candidate
will not be entitled to get appointed or will be
deprived of certain benefits, which is the case we
have in hand."
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
24. In Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan:
(2025) 2 SCC 1 Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the context of discussing discretion conferred on
recruiting authority to devise appropriate selection
procedure held thus: [Paragraphs quoted from SCC Online
print]
"51. What is clear from above is that the object of
any process of selection for entry into a public service
is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is
selected. What is suitable for one post may not be for
the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to
be left to the employer to devise its
method/procedure to select a candidate most
suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching
principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as also the rules/statute governing
service and reservation.
xxx xxx xxx
54. As already noticed in Section (A), a recruitment
process inter alia comprises of various steps like
inviting applications, scrutiny of applications,
rejection of defective applications or elimination of
ineligible candidates, conducting examinations,
calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of
list of successful candidates for appointment. Subject
to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or viva
voce are to be conducted, what questions are to be
put, in what manner evaluation is to be done,
whether a shortlisting exercise is needed are all
matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the
contrary, may be devised by the competent authority.
Often advertisement(s) inviting applications are open-
ended in terms of these steps and leave it to the
discretion of the competent authority to adopt such
steps as may be considered necessary in the
circumstances albeit subject to the overarching
principle of rule against arbitrariness enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution.
62. There can therefore be no doubt that where there
are no rules or the rules are silent on the subject,
administrative instructions may be issued to
supplement and fill in the gaps in the rules. In that
event administrative instructions would govern the
field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions
of the rules or the statute or the Constitution. But
where the rules expressly or impliedly cover the field,
the recruiting body would have to abide by the rules."
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
25. In view of our aforesaid analysis and reasoning and
applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court as we
have noted above in the decisions All India Shri Shivaji
Memorial Society (supra) and Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra) which fortify our reasoning and analysis we hold the
writ petition is liable to be and is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
26. The interim order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A. No.13063 of
2023 passed by the coordinate Bench merges with the final
order of dismissal of writ petition.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case we feel it
appropriate to pass further orders and direct 9 posts of
ATOs directed by the interim order dated 21.11.2023 not to
be filled up, shall be filled up as per the recommendation of
the opposite party no.2-OSSC as per the merit list and
availability of the candidates. The PTGIs, who have already
got selected through the selection process and have availed
the benefit of age relaxation as per the advertisement and
have joined as ATOs shall continue in their respective posts.
The present adjudication shall have no bearing on their
recruitment. The candidates who are already selected will
get appointment after disposal of the writ petition against
the posts directed not to be filled up by interim order(s),
shall have their initial date of appointment to be reckoned
from the date of appointment of the candidates in their
respective category immediately above them or the date of
appointment, if it has been taken to be a single particular
date in the respective category as the case may be.
No costs.
Manash Ranjan Pathak
Judge
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 31st October, 2025/Gs/Radha
