Anupama Khuntia vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8012 Ori

Orissa High Court

Anupama Khuntia vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 September, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       W.P.(C) No.10853 of 2022

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
  Constitution of India.
                            ..................

        Anupama Khuntia                              ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-
        State of Odisha & Ors.                      ....               Opposite Parties


       For Petitioners        :       Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate


       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. C.K. Pradhan
                                      Addl. Govt. Advocate


PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 09.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate

appearing for the Opp. Parties.

// 2 //

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following

prayer:-

"The petitioner therefore humbly prays that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application issue a RULENISI calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed as a Nursing Officer in respect of Jagatsingpur district as she fulfils all the criteria of appointment. If the opposite parties failed to show cause or show cause or shown any insufficient cause the rule may be made absolute against the opposite parties.

And

May pass any other order/ orders, direction /directions as this Hon'ble Court be deemed fit and proper.

And

And for which act of your kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray."

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that basing

on the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 1 on 04.12.2020

inviting application to fill up the post of Nursing Officer, Petitioner

made the application on 30.12.2020 under Annexure-2. While

accepting the application so submitted by the Petitioner, Petitioner

was issued with the provisional admission letter vide Annexure-3 and

after taking the written test, she came count successful and in the

notification issued vide order dtd.30.05.2021 under Annexure-4 by

Opp. Party No. 4, Petitioner' name was reflected at Sl. No. 75.

// 3 //

4.1. It is contended that thereafter vide notice dtd.02.08.2021 under

Annexure-5, Petitioner was directed to appear for document

verification on 06.08.2021. It is contended that in terms of the notice

issued on 02.08.2021, Petitioner appeared on 06.08.2021 for

verification of her document. But only on the ground that the

registration certificate issued by the Odisha Nurses & Midwives

Registration Council so available under Annexure-6 series since has

lost its validity, Petitioner was not provided with the appointment

even though, she was duly selected and found eligible vide office

order dtd.30.05.2021 under Annexure-4.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after

passing her the required examination, Petitioner registered her name

before the Odisha Nurses & Midwives Council, with issuance of the

certificate of registration on 14.08.2015 under Annexure-6 series. It is

contended that such a certificate remains valid for a period of 5 years

as per the guidelines issued by the Council. However, by the time the

period of 5 years expired, since the entire World was suffering from

Covid-19, Petitioner could not make necessary application for renewal

of the same. Guideline of the Council reads as follows:-

"In general all registration certificate are valid for a period of 5 (five) years."

// 4 //

4.3. However, on the face of the stipulation contained in the

advertisement vide Para 3(viii), Petitioner was not only allowed to

participate in the selection process but also, she came out successful

in the written examination and was provisionally appointed vide order

dtd.30.05.2021 under Annexure-4. But only on the ground that her

registration certification initially issued on 14.08.2015 so available

under Annexure-6, has expired w.e.f.13.08.2020 and in terms of Para

3(viii) of the advertisement the same being not valid, Petitioner was

not provided with the order of appointment.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since

the 5 year period expired during Covid-19 i.e. on 13.08.2020,

Petitioner could not make necessary application to get the same

renewed. However, on coming to know that her candidature has not

been accepted on the ground of expiry of the registration certificate,

the same was duly renewed on the very next date i.e.07.08.2021.

However, on the face of such renewal being given w.e.f.07.08.2021

vide certificate available under Annexure-6 series, Opp. Party No. 3

did not accept the same and consequentially Petitioner was deprived

to get the benefit of appointment.

// 5 //

4.5. It is contended that since because of Covid-19, Petitioner could

not renew her registration certificate after its expiry on 13.08.2020, on

the face of prevailing situation during Covid-19, renewal made by the

Petitioner on 07.08.2021, just after one day of the document

verification should have been accepted by the Opp. Party No. 3 with

issuance of the order of appointment. But on that ground only,

Petitioner's candidature was rejected and she was not provided with

the order of appointment.

4.6. It is also contended that in a similar issue this Court while dealing

with the matter in W.P.(C) No. 36009 of 2023, took the following

stand in Para 7:-

"7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties, and on a careful examination of the background facts, this court observes that the candidature of petitioners has been disqualified on the ground that the petitioners were not having a valid registration certificate by the Odisha Nurisng Council. On perusal of the record it appears that, the petitioners after competition of the course from recognized government institutions, had applied for registration with the Odisha Nurisng Council. Subsequently they have been granted a valid registration certificate by such counsel. Further, it appears that such registration certificate issued by the counsel is required to be renewed from time to time. So far the present petitioners are concerned, in their case, the renewal of their registration certificate fell due during the time when the

// 6 //

advertisement was published under Annexure-1 to the writ application. However, it is not disputed that the registration certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Odisha Nursing Council was duly renewed, and that such renewal means revival of the original registration without any break, and the registration certificate originally issued by the authority continuous to remain valid. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner were not having a valid registration certificate. it also appears that the registration number assigned to the petitioners also remains the same even after the renewal of such registration certificates. Further, on perusal of the facts of the present case, this court is also of the observation that, merely because the registration certificate is required to be renewed after a certain interval, it cannot be presumed that the same can valid certificate is in process of renewal. Moreover it is settled law that when a certificate is renewed, the certificate continues to remain valid, from the date of its initial issue, until the same is lawfully cancelled or terminated. From the records of this case, if reveals what the opposite parties have not stated that the registration certificate has either been cancelled or terminated. Therefore, the conduct of the Opposite Parties in holding that petitioners were not having valid registration in terms by the advertisement is not correct and the same is too harsh. Moreover, this court also observed that the power under Rule 8(4) having been exercised by the government earlier as it appears from the additional affidavit, there is no bar in exercising such power of relaxation in genuine and appropriate cases. In view of the aforesaid analysis as well as keeping in view factual background of the present case this court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by remanding the matter to the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 to reconsider the whole issue again keeping in view aforesaid observations made

// 7 //

by this court as well as the documents under Annexure-10 &11 to the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner. Let the petitioner approach the opposite party no. 1 & 3 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In such event opposite party no. 1& 3 shall do well to consider the same as directed by this Court hereinabove and take a final decision within two weeks thereafter. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. Any appointment made in the meantime shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Opposite Party 1 & 3 as directed hereinabove."

4.7. It is also contended that in terms of the aforesaid order of this

Court, Petitioner therein was appointed vide notice dtd.23.04.2025

under Annexure-R/3. It is accordingly contended that the ground on

which Petitioner's claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of

law and requires interference of this Court.

4.8. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court

in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Pritilata Nanda reported in

(2010) 11 SCC 674 as well as Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs.

Rajasthan High Court & Ors. reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, once

Petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process and

come out successful, on the ground that Petitioner was not having the

valid registration certificate as on the date of making the application

and/or on the date of verification of the certificate, Petitioner's

// 8 //

candidature could not have been rejected. Hon'ble Apex Court in

relevant portion of Para 9 of the decision in the case of Pritilata

Nanda has held as follows:-

"Once the petitioner's application was accepted by the authorities and she was allowed to appear in the written and viva voce tests and after name found mention at Serial No. 11 of the merit list, it was not longer open to the authorities concerned to raise any question relating to the petitioner's application for the purpose of disentitling her from the benefit of issuing her with an appointment letter. We consider it to be a gross abuse of the statutory power."

4.9. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 64 of the decision in the

case of Tej Prakash Pathak has held as follows:-

"Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 :

1991 SCC (L&S) 800] , a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list."

// 9 //

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his

submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed

by Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4. It is contended that in terms of the

stipulation contained in the advertisement vide Para 3(viii), Petitioner

since as on the date of making the application was not having the

valid registration certificate, she was not eligible to make the

application at all. Para 3(viii) of the advertisement reads as follows:-

"3(viii) They shall have to register their name in Nursing Council in the State and have valid registration certificate as on the date of advertisement."

5.1. It is also contended that in terms of the provisions contained

under Rule 9(xi) of the Odisha Nursing Service (Method of

Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 (in short Rules),

registration of the candidate before the Nursing Council of the State

with valid registration certificate as on the date of advertisement is a

requirement. Since it is not disputed that as on the date of making the

application, Petitioner's registration certificate had expired and it was

not a valid one, Petitioner should not have made the application and

the application made by her under Annexure-2, should have been

rejected at the very threshold.

// 10 //

5.2. However, Petitioner was allowed to appear the written test and

during verification of the documents on 06.08.2021, since it was

found that the registration certificate has lost validity

w.e.f.13.08.2020, Petitioner was not provided with the appointment

after such verification made on 06.08.2021. Rule 9(xi) of the Rules

reads as follows:-

"9(xi) have registered her/his name in Nursing Council in the State and have possessed valid Registration Certificates as on the date of advertisement."

5.3. It is accordingly contended that in view of the stipulation

contained in the advertisement vide Para 3(viii) and Rule 9(xi) of the

Rules, Petitioner was ineligible to make the application and

accordingly Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of appointment

as prayed for.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Opp. Party

No. 1 issued the advertisement to fill up 6432 nos. of Nursing Officers

vide Advertisement dtd.04.12.2020. As provided under Para 3(viii) of

the said advertisement, a candidate has to submit the valid registration

certificate as on the date of advertisement. Such a stipulation was

incorporated in the advertisement in terms of Rule 9(xi) of the Rules.

// 11 //

6.1. However, it is found that registration certificate issued in favour

of the Petitioner by the Council on 14.08.2015 expired on completion

of the 5 years on 13.08.2020. Since it is not disputed that during the

relevant time Covid-19 was at its peak, it is the view of this Court that

no fault can be found with regard to non-renewal of the registration

certificate, by the time Petitioner made the application in terms of the

advertisement issued on 04.12.2020. Such a requirement as per the

considered view of this Court is a curable one.

6.2. It is also found that on the face of such certificate being enclosed

to the application, Petitioner was allowed to participate in the

selection process by taking the written test held on 07.02.2021 and

was also got provisionally selected for appointment vide order issued

on 30.05.2021 under Annexure-4. Placing reliance on the decision in

the case of Pritilata Nanda as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court

that after allowing the Petitioner to participate and Petitioner having

been provisionally selected for appointment, she should not have been

deprived from being appointed.

6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that

since because of Covid-19, Petitioner could not renew her certificate

which expired on 13.08.2020 and the same was renewed just after one

// 12 //

day of the verification of documents on 07.08.2021, it is the view of

this Court that Petitioner should not have been deprived of the benefit

of appointment. Not only that pursuant to the order passed in a case of

similar issue in W.P.(C) No. 36009 of 2023, Petitioner therein has

already been provided with appointment.

6.4. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs

Opp. Party No. 3 to accept the registration certificate so renewed on

07.08.2021 as a valid registration certificate and take consequential

action in providing appointment to the Petitioner. This Court directs

Opp. Party No. 3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of six

(6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th of September, 2025/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack