ADVERTISEMENT
Orissa High Court
Sourava Rout vs Odisha Legislative Assembly … on 3 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 23353 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
1. Sourava Rout
2. Biswajyoti Behera ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Odisha Legislative Assembly represented
through its OSD-cum-Secretary,
Odisha Legislative Assembly Building,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda
2. The State of Odisha represented
through its Secretary to Government,
Parliamentary Affairs Department,
Govt. of Odisha, Lok Seva Bhavan,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case
For Petitioners : Mr. Subrat Misra,
Advocate
For Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. P.K. Nanda,
Advocate
For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 01.05.2026 Date of Judgment: 03.07.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
S.K. Mishra, J. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the
Petitioners assailing the order in Memo No.4581 (3)/L.A
Bhubaneswar dated 21.07.2023 issued by the Selection
Board of the Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat, vide
which the entire selection process for recruitment to the
posts of Reporters, pursuant to advertisement dated
26.01.2021, was cancelled resulting in denial of
appointment to the Petitioners despite their selection.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ
Petition are that on 26.01.2021 an advertisement was
issued by the Secretary, Odisha Legislative Assembly
Secretariat, Bhubaneswar for recruitment to seven posts of
Reporters. The Petitioner No.1 applied under UR category,
whereas Petitioner No.2 applied under SC category. As per
Notice No.3859/LA dt. 16.04.2021 of the Secretariat of
Odisha Legislative Assembly, both the Petitioners, being
duly selected in the Type Test held on 07.03.2021, were
invited for the Short-hand Skill Test (English & Odia) and
Viva Voce (Certificate verification) for the said posts, which
was scheduled to be held on 19.04.2021 and 22.04.2021.
As per selection Notice No.4641/LA dated 29.06.2021, the
Page 2 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
names of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 found place at Serial
Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2.1. Subsequently, the meeting of the Selection
Board, scheduled on 04.10.2021 for approval of
appointments, was postponed without any disclosed reason
contrary to the Rules of the Orissa legislative Assembly
Secretariat (recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules
1983, shortly, „the Rules, 1983‟. Being aggrieved, the
Petitioners earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 seeking a direction for issuance of
appointment orders. This Court, vide judgment dated
19.05.2023, directed the Selection Board to take a final
decision regarding the appointment of the Petitioners in
terms of the select list dated 29.06.2021 within eight
weeks.
2.2. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 challenged the
judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 31988 of
2021 by filing W.A. No. 1458 of 2023. During the pendency
of the said Appeal, the Selection Board passed an order
dated 21.07.2023 cancelling the entire selection process
and denying appointment to the Petitioners, which the
Page 3 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Petitioners came to know upon publication of the said order
on the Notice Board and website of the Odisha Legislative
Assembly Secretariat. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed basically on the
grounds that, the action of the Selection Board in passing
the order dated 21.07.2023 cancelling the selection
process, despite the Petitioners being in the final select list
dated 29.06.2021, is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set
aside, as a right had accrued in their favour in view of their
selection in the select list dated 29.06.2021 so also the law
settled in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & others Vs. South
East Central Railway, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798.
3.1. It is the case of the Petitioners that, the plea of
absence of verification of original documents for
cancellation is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
completed selection process and earlier pleadings. Further,
the impugned order of cancellation reflects non-application
of mind and is vitiated by malice in law, particularly in view
of the earlier judgment passed by the coordinate Bench
holding the selection process to be fair. It is also the case of
Page 4 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
the Petitioners that the Selection Board has overstepped its
powers under Rule 7(2) and its proviso of the Rules, 1983.
4. The Opposite Party No.1, in its Counter Affidavit
has stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated
26.01.2021 for recruitment to the posts of Reporters,
though the Petitioners participated in the selection process
and cleared all the tests and the Examination Committee
recommended the names of the Petitioners to the Selection
Board on 23.08.2021, but the Selection Board could not be
convened, leading to filing of W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021,
which was disposed of with a direction to convene the
Selection Board in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1983. In
compliance thereof, the Selection Board was convened on
21.07.2023 and, upon deliberation, cancelled the entire
selection process and directed for issuance of a fresh
advertisement.
4.1. It is the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that
mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any right
on the Petitioners for appointment. The recommendation of
the Examination Committee was subject to approval of the
Selection Board and final approval of the Hon‟ble Speaker,
Page 5 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
which remained incomplete. Hence, no right was
crystallized in favour of the Petitioners.
4.2. Further, the Selection Board, upon examining
the records, found that original documents relating to the
selection process were not available and noted the dissent
of the Members of the Examination Committee, indicating
serious irregularities and compromise of the sanctity of the
process. Accordingly, it recommended the cancellation of
the entire selection.
4.3. It is also the stand of the Opposite Party No.1
that the Examination Committee had disowned the
selection process and the same never attained finality. The
Petitioners were merely recommended candidates awaiting
final approval of the Hon‟ble Speaker. It is further stated
that the father of one of the Petitioners was a member of
the Examination Committee and, in view of the overall
factual scenario, the Selection Board recommended
cancellation of the entire selection process and issuance of
a fresh advertisement to ensure a fair and transparent
recruitment.
Page 6 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
4.4. It is further stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that
in public employment, the selection process must be fair,
transparent and in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India, and any tainted process is liable
to be discarded. In view of the settled legal position and the
facts of the case, the action of the Selection Board in
cancelling the selection process and directing fresh
recruitment is just, proper and in accordance with law.
5. In response, a Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed
by the Petitioners reiterating the averments made in the
writ petition and denying the contentions raised in the
Counter Affidavit. It has been contended that the
Petitioners having successfully cleared all stages of the
selection process and having been placed at Sl. Nos. 1 and
2 in the select list, their right to appointment stood
crystallized and the subsequent decision of the Selection
Board, cancelling the entire selection process, is arbitrary,
illegal and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in
the earlier Writ Petition.
5.1. It is the case of the Petitioners that, the order
dated 21.07.2023 is contrary to the judgment dated
Page 7 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021, which
has attained finality, and that reliance on the note of
dissent is misplaced as its existence had been denied under
RTI reply dated 27.07.2022 and no such plea was earlier
taken.
5.2. It is further case of the Petitioners that, the plea
regarding involvement of the Petitioner‟s father in the
Examination Committee is false and has been taken for the
first time in the present Counter Affidavit. Further, the
selection process had already culminated in preparation of
the select list upon completion of all stages, and only
approval under Rule 7(2) remained, which the Selection
Board was bound to grant, and if original records are not
maintained by the Opposite Party, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against it.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, reiterating
the facts and grounds pleaded in the Writ Petition so also
Rejoinder Affidavit, submitted that the plea of the Opposite
Party that on a conjoint reading of Rule 7(2) and its proviso
of the Rules, 1983, the selection process was completed on
issuance of Notice No.4641/LA dated 29.06.2021 is
Page 8 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
misleading. In view of the observation made vide the
common Judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 and W.P(C) No.6171 of 2022 by the
coordinate Bench, so also Judgments of the Supreme
Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), so also in R.S.
Mittal Vs. Union of India, reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC
230, a right had accrued in favour of the Petitioners for
their appointment in the posts of Reporters.
6.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, drawing
attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.32, 33, 34, 46, 47
and 49 of the Judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, further submitted that as the
Opposite Party No.1 filed Counter Affidavit in W.P(C)
No.6171 of 2022 contrary to the earlier Counter Affidavit
filed in W.P(C) No.31988 of 2021, where no allegations were
leveled against the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as reflected in
common judgment dated 19.05.2023.That apart, vide letter
dated 27.07.2022 under the Right to Information Act, it
was stated that no such note of dissent was received nor
available in records. Further, this Court vide common
judgment dated 19.05.2023 in W.P(C) No.31988 of 2021,
Page 9 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
upon calling for the original records, found no evidence of
any "note of dissent" and recorded a clear finding that "no
such note of dissent exists at least the same is not available
on record".
6.2. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioners that, the action of the Selection Board in
cancelling the entire selection process, being contrary to
the observations made by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021, is illegal, arbitrary, suffers from non-
application of mind and is vitiated by malice in law.
Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted
that the impugned notice dated 21.07.2023 be set aside
and necessary directions be issued for appointment of the
Petitioners to the posts of Reporters.
6.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners referring to
Rule 7(2) and its Proviso of the Rules, 1983 further
submitted that the role of Selection Board of the Secretariat
of Odisha Legislative Assembly in granting approval to the
appointment of the Petitioners as Reporters is only formal
in nature and should have been granted within a
reasonable time of completion of the selection process,
Page 10 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
which got completed on 23.08.2021 as per the
memorandum of meeting of the Selection Board held on
23.08.2021 vide which it was proposed to recommend the
names of the Petitioners for appointment as Reporters.
6.4. Mr. Misra further submitted that the impugned
notice dated 21.07.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and struck by
malice in law so also res judicata, as the findings of the
learned coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 19.05.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 attained finality on
dismissal of W.A. No.1458 of 2023, preferred by the Odisha
Legislative Assembly.
6.5. It was further submitted by Mr. Misra that
though Odisha Legislative Assembly, being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.31988 of
2021 , preferred W.A. No.1458 of 2023, during pendency of
the said Writ Appeal, on the pretext of implementing the
said judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021, issued the impugned notice dated
21.07.2023 illegally , thereby cancelling the entire
selection process for the posts of Reporters pursuant to the
advertisement dated 26.01.2021 .Accordingly, the said
Page 11 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Writ Appeal stood dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2023
as infructuous. Hence, such a decision, being contrary to
the observations made so also direction given by the
coordinate Bench, deserves interference.
6.6. Mr. Misra further submitted that one Satya
Narayan Maharana, who was an unsuccessful candidate,
preferred W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 challenging the selection
of the Petitioners on the grounds of irregularity in selection
process. The said Writ Petition also stood dismissed vide
common judgment dated 19.05.2023 (supra), vide which
the learned coordinate Bench, after calling for the
concerned file, passed a detailed order observing therein
that there is no procedural irregularity/flaw in the said
selection process. That apart, Satya Narayan Maharana
also preferred W.A. No.1343 of 2023, challenging the
common judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 and the
said Writ Appeal also stood disposed of vide order dated
06.03.2024 as infructuous. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1
was not justified to issue the impugned notice dated
Page 12 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
21.07.2023, thereby taking a decision to go for fresh
recruitment for filling up the posts of the Reporters.
6.7. Mr. Misra further submitted that the stand of the
Opposite Party No.1 that the Selection Board was free to
take a decision on its own after being subjectively satisfied
about the process has to be read in conjunction with the
judgment dated 19.05.2023 rendered in W.P.(C) No.31988
of 2021 which has become final after dismissal of the W.A.
No.1458 of 2023.
6.8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also
submitted that the Selection Board was not justified to
cancel the entire selection process on the ground of alleged
non-availability of original records for verification, more
particularly, after perusal of those records by the
coordinate Bench and coming to a conclusion vide
Judgment dated 19.05.2023 (supra) that there was no
infirmity or illegality in the selection process. Further, in
absence of original records for verification, adverse
inference ought to have been drawn to the effect that there
were no irregularities in the selection process.
Page 13 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
6.9. To substantiate his submissions, Learned
Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the Judgments of the
Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Ex-
Major Sudershan Gupta, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 298,
IDBI Bank Ltd Vs. Ramswaroop Daliya and others,
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 arising out of SLP(C)
Nos.8159-8160/23, K. B. Ramachandra Raje Vs. State
of Karnataka, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 422, Tej Prakash
Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others,
reported in (2025) 2 S.C.C 1, Pratap Kishore Panda &
others Vs. Agni Charan Das, reported in (2015) 17 SCC
789, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs.
Mamta Bisht & others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204,
M. J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others,
reported in (2021) 13 SCC 543, Mumbai International
Airport(P) Ltd Vs. Regency Convention Centre, reported
in (2010) 7 SCC 417, Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of
India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 and State of Assam
and others Vs. Arabinda Rabha and others, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 523.
Page 14 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1, drawing attention of this Court to the
observations and direction given by the coordinate Bench in
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, submitted that the Selection
Board was convened on 21.07.2023 and cancelled the
entire selection process and directed for issuance of fresh
advertisement in terms of the direction given by the learned
coordinate Bench.
7.1. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1
further submitted that inclusion of the name of the
Petitioners in the select list does not confer any right to
their appointment in the posts of Reporters. That apart,
recommendation of the Examination Committee was
subject to approval of the Selection Board and final
approval of the Hon‟ble Speaker. In view of the reasons
detailed in the impugned notice, the same deserves no
interference and the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit,
deserves dismissal.
7.2. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1
submitted that the Selection Board repudiated the selection
process due to grave deficiencies, including non-production
Page 15 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
of the original records and the dissent notes of the
Committee Members, which revealed serious misgivings
and disownment of the process. The delay in raising such
objections was not fatal, as the Examination Committee
stage was only preliminary and the final stage involved
scrutiny and approval by the Hon'ble Speaker under Rule
7(2) of the OLA (RCS) Rules, 1983. Since the learned Single
Judge had passed an open remand order, the Selection
Board was free to take a decision on its own after being
subjectively satisfied about the process of selection and
there is no illegality or infirmity in the said decision to
cancel the selection process.
7.3. It was further submitted that, if the purity of the
selection process is tainted even to the slightest degree, the
process must be discarded, as public posts cannot be filled
through a tainted selection process. In the present case, the
dissent notes of all three Members of the Selection
Committee reasonably and logically indicate that the
selection process was tainted. Therefore, the action of the
Selection Board in cancelling the selection process was just
and proper.
Page 16 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
7.4. To substantiate his submissions, learned
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 relied on the
Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (1991) 3 SCC
47 (Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India) and 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 523 (State of Assam and others Vs. Arabinda
Rabha and others).
8. From the pleadings on record so also
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties,
the following issues emerge to be dealt in the present Writ
Petition.
(i) Whether there was any procedural
irregularity/flaw or illegality in the selection
process for appointment in the posts of Reporters,
thereby justifying its cancellation and taking a
decision by the Selection Board vide the
impugned notice dated 21.07.2023 at Annexure-7
to issue a fresh advertisement for filling up the
posts of Reporters?
(ii) Whether the Selection Board was justified to
cancel the selection process on the pretext of
implementation of the direction given by the
Page 17 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
coordinate Bench in its judgment dated
19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021,
despite observations made vide the said judgment
that there is no procedural irregularity/flaw in the
selection process for appointment in the posts of
Reporters?
(iii) Whether the selection of the Petitioners and
publication of the merit /select list, as
recommended by the Examination Committee as
well as Assembly Secretariat, created any legal
right in favour of the Petitioners, there by
justifying a direction from this Court for their
appointment in the posts of Reporters?
9. Issue Nos.(i) and (ii), being interlinked, are dealt
herewith together for the sake of brevity.
10. Admittedly, W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 was
preferred by the Petitioners praying therein to direct the
Opposite Party No.1 to issue appointment order in their
favour for the posts of Reporters as per merit list/select list,
as recommended by the Examination Committee as well as
Assembly Secretariat. Per contra, W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022
Page 18 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
was preferred by one Satya Narayan Maharana, an
unsuccessful candidate, praying therein to quash the entire
selection process so also selection of the present
Petitioners, who were arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3
to the said Writ Petition . Both the said Writ Petitions were
taken up and disposed of vide a common judgment dated
19.05.2023.
10.1. As is revealed from the common judgment dated
19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 and
W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022, the Opposite Party No.1 filed a
Counter Affidavit in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 detailing
therein the entire selection process without any allegation
regarding procedural irregularity or illegality in the said
process. Rather, a positive stand was taken therein that
though an attempt was made to convene a meeting of the
Selection Board on 28.09.2021 and 04.10.2021, on both
the occasions meeting was postponed. It was further stated
that as per the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1983,
appointment to the posts of Reporters can only be made in
consultation with the Selection Board since the posts of
Reporters are Class-II Post and such selection process can
Page 19 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
only be completed with due approval of the
recommendation of the Selection Board by the Hon‟ble
Speaker.
10.2. However, in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 preferred by
one Satya Narayan Maharana, a contrary stand was taken
alleging therein the procedural irregularity so also decision
taken by the Opposite Party No.1 to cancel the selection
process to the posts of Reporters, without mentioning
therein any specific reasons to arrive at such a conclusion
to cancel the selection process. Hence, the coordinate
Bench called for the records pertaining to the examination
process pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.01.2021
issued by the Secretary, Odisha Legislative Assembly for
examination and appointment of seven numbers of
Reporters in Odisha Legislative Assembly . On careful and
close scrutiny of the records as well as note sheets, it was
observed that recruitment process has been conducted by
following the Rules very meticulously .It was further held
that the Opposite Parties have failed to prove a valid
justification to cancel the selection process on the ground
of sanctity and fairness of such recruitment process. Since
Page 20 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
in the common judgment dated 19.05.2023 (supra), the
Issue No-1 involved in the present lis has been vividly
discussed and decided, instead of reiterating those facts on
record, it would be apt to reproduce below paragraph
Nos.28 to 34, so also paragraph Nos.40, 42, 43, 46 and 47
to 49 of the said judgment for the sake of brevity.
"28. Surprisingly, nowhere in the counter
affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1 in
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 on 02.05.2022 there is
no whisper with regard to note of dissension by
the Examination Committee members. Although
it has been alleged in the counter affidavit in
the W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 that a note of
dissent has been submitted by the Examination
Committee members although the date of said
note of dissent has not been mentioned, neither
a copy of said dissent note has been annexed to
the counter affidavit. In view of such confusion and
two different stands taken in two different counter
affidavits filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1,
this Court is required to examine the issue further,
Accordingly, this Court called for records
pertaining to examination process pursuant to
the advertisement under Annexure-1. On perusal
of the record, pertaining to the entire selection process
pursuant to Annexure-1, this Court observed that the
note sheet dated 13.02.2014 reveals that several
posts of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary reporting,
Under Secretary reporting, reporter, were lying vacant
and accordingly, the file was put up to fill up such
vacant posts. Accordingly, steps were taken to fill up
such posts and in fact, it appears that the some of the
posts have been filled up in the meantime. On perusal
of the note-sheet dated 20.11.2020, it appears that it
has been noted that seven posts of reporters are lying
vacant, keeping in view the requirement of the present
day i.e. in which computer skill and higher
qualification was inserted by amending the Rules
1983 with the concurrence of the Law Department
vide amendment Rules, 2020. After obtaining
Page 21 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
concurrence of Hon'ble Chief Minister as well as
Hon'ble Speaker such rules were amended and
notified on 20.01.2021 and same was published in
the Odisha Gazette on the very same day.
Accordingly, a draft advertisement was prepared for
recruitment to the post of reporters. After due
approval of the authorities, the advertisement was
published in three daily leading newspapers fixing
last date of receiving application on 10.02.2021. On
further perusal of the note-sheet, it appears that with
the approval of the Hon'ble Speaker, Examination
Committee was constituted on 03.02.2021 which
consists of the following members:-
1. Shri Matraj Dung Dung -Deputy Secretary
2. Smt. Sushila Mallick - Deputy Secretary
3. Sri Satyabrat Samal -Accounts Officer
29. Moreover, the note-sheet further reveals that total
127 numbers of applications were received pursuant
to advertisement under Annexure-1 for appointment to
the post of reporters. After scrutiny of the
applications, it was decided to hold the recruitment
test at College I.T. and Management Education,
Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar and
accordingly, admit cards were issued to 76
candidates to appear in type writing test which was
held on 17.02.2021. Vide note dated 02.03.2021, six
Government officers were nominated to conduct such
examination test. Noting 94 dated 4th of March, 2021
reveals that the case of Priyabrata Mohanty has been
mentioned. The note-sheet further reveals that expert
committee expressed their inability to discharge the
responsibility bestowed on them on the ground that
they are not having such experience to conduct
recruitment test. Accordingly, Home Department was
requested on 05.03.2021 to depute experts to conduct
recruitment test of reporters. In response to the
aforesaid request, the Home Department had deputed
four numbers of Private Secretary to conduct the
recruitment test and note-sheet further reveals that
with regard to the interim order passed in the writ
petition filed by the Priyabrata Mohanty, views of the
Law Department was sought for from the Principal
Secretary to law, who had given his opinion on
08.04.2021 by saying that the result of the
candidates except, namely, Priyabrata Mohanty be
not published while giving appointment one post shall
be kept reserved and the same shall depend on final
outcome of the writ petition.
Page 22 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
30. Accordingly, one post of reporter UR category was
kept vacant and decision was taken to continue with
the recruitment process by conducting shorthand test
and viva-voce test. The note-sheet dated 23.02.2021
reveals that names of two candidates in shorthand
skill test was declared finally, names of both the
petitioners were declared as successful candidates
and accordingly they were called to attend the viva-
voce test on 23.02.2021. Besides both the petitioners,
Priyabrata Mohanty was also called upon to attend
viva-voce test as per order dated 03.03.2021. The
said order in the note-sheet also reveals that the
examination related papers have been kept in a
sealed cover. The note sheet also reveals that the
decision not to publish the result of the petitioner no.1
as he belong to UR(M) category and further it was
decided to go ahead and publish the result of the
petitioner no.2 as she can be appointed against SC
category post. Accordingly, the view of the learned
Advocate General was also sought for. Note-sheet
also reveals that the note of Deputy Secretary and the
Chairman of the Examination Committee was also
approved by the Hon'ble Speaker.
31. Noting dated 28.06.2021 of the Chairman of the
Selection Committee reveals that the final result of the
viva-voce test was kept in a sealed cover awaiting
approval of the Hon'ble Speaker and further in
another noting dated 29.06.2021, it has been
mentioned that the Hon'ble Speaker desired to
declare the viva-voce test reporters for the post of
report and before such declaration, the views of the
Legal Cell may be taken. Finally, completing the
entire process vide noting dated 29.06.22021, the
final result was up-loaded in the website of OLA.
Thereafter, the subsequent note-sheet reveals that the
meeting of the Selection Board was convened,
however, the same was postponed. Note sheet dated
29.03.2021 reveals that the order dated 03.03.2022
dismissing the W.P.(C) No.8181 of 2022 had been
received by the Opposite Party No.1 office. Finally, the
Under Secretary to Law, vide his noting dated
28.09.22021 advised Opposite Party No.2 to place the
result before the Selection Board for approval vide
noting dated 28.09.2021 before the Hon'ble Speaker
in the meeting of the Selection Board convened on
04.10.2021.
32. While this was the position, note-sheet dated
06.04.2022 reveals that one Satya Narayan
Page 23 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Maharana, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022
filed a writ application challenging the selection of the
petitioners wherein this Court as an interim measure
directed any appointment made shall be subject to
the final outcome of the writ application. Accordingly,
the aforesaid order has been taken note of. Now
comes an important note-sheets dated 15.11.2022
prepared under the signature of OSC-cum-Secretary,
the said note is marked "Confidential". Further the
same reveals that discussion took place with regard
to alleged irregularities, infirmities pointed out by
Chairman and members of the Examination
Committee on 28.09.2021, which was constituted for
conducting recruitment test and to recommend the
selected candidates for appointment as reporters in
OLA. The Chairman of the Selection Committee,
namely, Shri Matraj Dung Dung had retired by then
as Deputy Secretary. It has also been mentioned that
member of the Examination Committee complained
before the Hon'ble Speaker on 28.09.2021 pertaining
to selection process to the posts of reporters. Finally,
in the said note-sheet, it has been expressed that to
maintain integrity and sanctity in the selection
process, the selection process in respect of reporters
post basing on advertisement dated 29.06.2021 may
be considered as cancelled. On perusal of the note-
sheet dated 15.11.2022, this Court observed
that note of dissent submitted by the members of
the Examination Committee could not be
produced before this Court. Further same does
not find place in the entire record. Even
accepting for the sake of argument that there
was note of dissent in the record till
15.11.2022, on 15.11.2022, for the first time,
the note of dissent findings mention in the note-
sheet that too without a copy of such note of
dissent being part of the record. Moreover,
without conducting a formal enquiry with
regard to such, a decision was taken hastily on
one date to recommend for cancellation of the
advertisement. Although view of the Law
Department was sought for, however, noting of
the then Principal Secretary, Law Department
dated 15.11.2022 reveals that in view of the
communication dated 29.08.2021, he had
advised to enquire into recruitment process and
to fix responsibility on the persons involved. On
perusal of the note-sheet of the Principal
Page 24 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Secretary, Law Department, it appears that he
has not discussed the note of dissent dated
29.08.2021, rather he has not even mentioned
the word "note of dissent" in the said note-sheet.
However, in view of the communication dated
29.08.2021, he had advised to conduct an
enquiry into recruitment process. As advised by
the learned Principal Secretary to Law, file was
placed before the Hon'ble Speaker and in his
noting, the Hon'ble Speaker recommended for
taking the views of the Advocate engaged for the
OLA Secretariat and further to take leave of the
Court at the earliest for cancellation of the
recruitment process. On the opinion of the
learned Advocate appearing for the OLA, a
decision was taken to cancel the selection
process to the post of reporter which was
initiated under Annexure-1 although no specific
reasons has been indicated and no justification
has been given in arriving at such a conclusion
to cancel the selection process at Page-122 of
the note-sheet i.e. noting from 196 reveals that
instruction was received from the Hon'ble
Governor's Secretariat dated 19.08.2021 for
taking necessary action in the matter to furnish
a report to the Hon'ble Governor is Secretariat
relating to the recruitment of reporters in OLA.
The allegations made by such representationist
have been noted in the said note-sheet.
33. It is, at this stage, the note-sheet of the file
discussed about the order passed by this Court for
production of record. In the note-sheet after the order
passed by this Court Deputy Secretary called for the
records, since he did not get information from the
Deputy Secretary which was decided to be kept in a
hard file and in a sealed cover. With regard to original
note of dissent aforesaid note no.191 reveals that
OSD-cum-Secretary has noted in the file that the
original note of dissent was received by him and the
same was forwarded to Smt. Baijayanit Pattanaik,
Under Secretary of the establishment branch.
However, it has been finally stated that the
original note of dissent is not available/found in
the branch and as such, it was presumed that
the original note of dissent dated 29.08.2021 is
with Smt. Baijayanti Pattanaik, Deputy
Secretary. She was directed to submit the
original note of dissent. Note no.212, reveals
Page 25 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
that the Ex-Deputy Secretary Shri Matraj Dung
Dung, Chairman of the Examination Committee,
who has retired in the meantime, has submitted
that not a single piece of paper is available with
him or with any member of the Examination
Committee as he is not the custodian of such
papers. Further it reveals that the suspicious
circumstance relating to the examination as
alleged by the Chairman of the Examination
Committee, who has submitted note of dissent
on 29.08.2021 before the Hon'ble Speaker, such
note of dissent was submitted before the Hon'ble
Speaker on 29.08.2021. Interestingly, the above
named Smt. Baijayanti Pattanaik, to whom it is
stated that the note of dissent was handover in
her reply to memo dated 19.01.2023 has stated
that she was on leave on 29.08.2023 (sic) for
funeral ceremony of her father, who had passed
away on previous night. As such, she has not
received the original note of dissent nor she was
dealing with the file in the matter.
34. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the entire
note-sheet, pertaining to the record which was
produced before this Court, this Court is of the
considered view that the same raises more questions
than answers to the issues raised in the writ
application. Moreover, this Court observes that
the original note of dissent does not exist as
Smt. Baijayanti Pattanaik, who has been
allegedly received the note of dissent marked to
her, stated that she was on leave on that
particular date. Moreover, a careful scrutiny of
the entire record reveals that although the
entire selection process was concluded in a
hassle free manner in note dated 29.08.2021
and the names of the selected candidates
uploaded in the website of OLA, there was no
objection with regard to selection process at
least no such discussion was found in the note-
sheet of the file. It is for the first time in November,
2022 discussion with regard to note of dissent further
even accepting that there were irregularities in the
examination process, till November, 2022. Had that
been so, the illegality or irregularity should
have brought to the notice of the authorities
forthwith otherwise the delay in reporting
would definitely reduce the credibility and
importance of such allegation. Considering the
Page 26 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
fact that the note of dissent was discussed for
the first time in the note-sheet of November,
2022, there is a delay of more than one year.
Such delay cannot be simply brushed aside by
this Court, particularly when, such time gap so
large that the same could be an afterthought
and as such questioning the selection of the
selected candidates has become more doubtful.
Besides such delayed discussion reduced the
credibility of any kind of dissent or allegation
with regard to recruitment process. Moreover in
the absence of any clarity coupled with the fact
that no enquiry having been conducted on such
allegation by the authorities before coming to
the conclusion to cancel the recruitment
process, complex this Court to believe that such
belated discussion on the dissent note is an
afterthought to nullify the recruitment process.
Most importantly, the relevant document, i.e. note of
dissent, as it appears from the record, has not seen
the light of the day. Therefore, this Court asked
itself a question as to how far it would be
justified to take cognizance of such a note of
dissent which finds not mentioned in the note-
sheet from 28.09.2021 to November, 2022.
Further this court is of the view that had the
Selection Board meeting been conducted in due
time, the petitioners would have been appointed
by now. In such view of the matter, this Court
has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that
no such note of dissent exists at least the same
is not available on record despite the best
attempt by the Secretariat of OLA to trace the
same out. Hence, the same shall not be taken
into consideration while deciding the present
case.
xxx xxx xxx
40. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
Opposite Party No.1 did not controvert the factual
aspect much in course of his argument, however, by
referring to the note of dissent dated 29.08.2021, he
submitted that a decision has been taken keeping in
view the sanctity and fairness of the recruitment
process to cancel the recruitment test. In course of
his argument, he did not assail the recruit
process up to final publication of the selected
candidates and he also did not submit Rules,
1983 has been violated in any manner. The entire
Page 27 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
focus of Mr Palit, learned senior counsel's argument
was to defend the conduct of the Opposite Parties, in
taking a decision to cancel the recruitment process
and the entirely based on the note of dissent and the
allegation made against the said recruitment process.
However, Mr. Palit, learned senior counsel in
course of his argument very fairly submitted
that the copy of the so-called dissent is not
available on record which fact is also evident
from the record produced before this Court
pursuant to the direction of this Court. He also
did not dispute the memorandum dated
23.08.2021 of the Selection Board wherein the
Examination Committee recommended the name
of the petitioners in order of merit for
appointment as reporters and accordingly, the
Secretary, OLA had convened a meeting of the
Selection Board. Of course, that meeting never took
place and the same was being postponed from time to
time. So far the factual aspects of the matter as
argued by Mr. Palit, learned senior counsel is
concerned, the same needs no elaborated discussion
here as this Court has already elaborately discussed
the entire note-sheet of the record which were placed
before this Court.
xxx xxx xxx
42. Mr. Palit, learned senior counsel further
took a plea that the writ petition is not
maintainable on the ground (I) the same is
premature as the selection process to the post of
reporter is not over (II) no court can direct the
authorities to execute the select list which has
not been finalized by following the due process
of selection and as per the governing rules.
43. While analyzing the said two grounds, this Court
is of the considered view that it is true that the
selection process is not yet over as the same is to be
finalized by the Hon'ble Speaker in consultation with
the Selection Board as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules
1983. However, in view of the settled position of
law, this Court can always direct the
authorities to expedite and to conclude the
selection process in view of the fact that such
selection process is a statutory one and the
same has to be carried out by following the
rules, 1983. Moreover, as a public body guided
by the rule of law, the Opposite Parties cannot
take the plea that there is no obligation to
Page 28 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
conclude the selection process within a
stipulated period of time. Even otherwise also this
Court on examination of records found that there are
several posts of reporters which are lying vacant at
the moment as a result of which the work of
Legislative Assembly is likely to be affected
adversely. Therefore, this Court in larger public
interest have always issued a mandamus exercising
of jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 to direct the
authorities to conclude the selection process strictly in
terms of rules governing such selection process.
Therefore, such argument of Mr. Palit is bound
to fail.
46. Additionally, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Opposite Parties argued that Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India mandates that the selection
process has to be conducted in a fair, transparent
and accountable manner. Irregularities and illegalities
of process of recruitment deprives the genuine
candidates of an equal opportunity to participate in
the recruitment process and to be appointed to the
posts. Therefore, the same definitely affects the rights
of the candidates as contained in Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that
sanctity of the recruitment process can never be
compromised. In considering such argument of Mr.
Palit, this Court has no other opinion that the
argument advanced by Mr. Palit is based on facts or
allegation of irregularities in the selection process and
on presuppositions of a scenario that irregularities
and illegalities have been committed in the
recruitment process. This Court, on detailed
analysis of facts as well as records found that
there is no record to show that there exists any
illegality or irregularity in the selection process.
His entire argument on irregularity and
illegality based on a note of dissent which was
not even available on record and the same was
never produced before this Court despite specific
direction. Moreover, no attempt was ever made
to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Therefore
such a ground is not available to him to be
taken in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
47. The last plank of argument of learned senior
counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 is that
in view of the fact that the purity of the selection
process to public posts as mandate under Section 16
Page 29 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
of the Constitution of India cannot be compromised.
Alternatively purity in the selection process
discovered in the slightest manner the procedure is to
be discarded and such post cannot be filled up by
following a tainted process of selection. He further
submitted that there is enough material on record to
show that the selection process is tainted. This Court
upon a careful consideration of the aforesaid
contention of Mr. Palit is of the considered view that
the proposition of law advanced by him is a settled
position of law and the same cannot be denied. So
far purity of examination process is concerned;
the principle of law argued by Mr. Palit shall
have application depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. So far the present
case is concerned, the record does not reveal
any irregularity or illegality on the contrary, a
note of dissent has been referred to in the note-
sheet whereas the said note of dissent was
neither produced before this Court nor the same
is available on record. Other than, such
allegation, there is no materials which would
impeach the fairness and the transparency of
selection process which in fact was sought to be
defended by filing the counter affidavit in
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 although a different
counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C)
No.6171 of 2022. On a careful and close
scrutiny of the records as well as note-sheet this
Court also observed that the recruitment process
has been conducted by following the rules very
meticulously and accordingly names were
finally up-loaded on 28.09.2021. The note of
dissent which was discussed for the first time in
November, 2022 is more than one year after the
final select list was published.
48. In such view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation to come to a conclusion that the
Opposite Parties have failed to produce any
material to impeach fairness and impartiality
of the selection process. However, while observing
so, this Court is also view that the recruitment
process which was started pursuant to the
advertisement under Annexure-1 is still incomplete as
the requirement of Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1983 has not
been completed. As such no mandamus could be
issued at this juncture to give appointment to the
petitioners.
Page 30 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
49. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well
as law, this court is of the considered view that
the Opposite Parties have failed to provide a
valid justification to cancel the selection
process on the ground of sanctity and fairness
of such recruitment process. Moreover, the
documents or the note of dissent basing on
which such allegations were made have not yet
seen the light of the day and the same was
never produced before this Court despite specific
direction by this Court. Therefore, this Court is
well within its discretion to draw an
interference that such a document never existed.
Moreover, no steps whatsoever having been
taken to conduct any sort for enquiry to find out
the veracity of such allegation made by any of
the unsuccessful candidates. As a result this
Court has not hesitation to hold that the
opposite parties have failed to provide any
valid/legal justification in coming to a
conclusion to cancel the recruitment process
after almost one and half years after the final
select list was recommended by the Examination
Committee. Accordingly, this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.1 to immediately convene a
meeting of the Selection Board in terms of Rule 7(2) of
Rules, 1983. The names of the selected
candidates which were up-loaded in the website
of OLA dated 28.09.2021 be placed before such
Selection Board. Thereafter, necessary action be
taken by the Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to
the decision of the Selection Board and the
Hon'ble Speaker within a period of eight weeks
from the date of communication of a copy of this
judgment. It is further made clear that in the event
the Selection Board gives its concurrence to the list of
selected candidates, then the Opposite Parties shall
do well to giving the petitioners appointment against
the posts of reporters pursuant to the advertisement
under Annexure-1."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. As is revealed from the said findings of the
coordinate Bench in judgment dated 19.05.2023 (supra),
Page 31 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
not only W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 was dismissed vide the
said common judgment, but also a direction was given to
the Opposite Party No.1 to place the names of the selected
candidates (Petitioners) before the Selection Board, which
were uploaded in the website of Odisha Legislative
Assembly dated 28.09.2021 , and to take necessary action
pursuant to the decision of the Selection Board and the
Hon‟ble Speaker within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of a copy of the said judgment. It
was made clear that if the Selection Board gives its
concurrence to the list of selected candidates; the Opposite
Parties shall do well to give appointment to the Petitioners
against the posts of Reporters pursuant to the
advertisement dated 26.01.2021.
11.1. Admittedly, being aggrieved by such findings so
also direction given by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021, the Opposite Party No.1 preferred W.A.
No.1458 of 2023, whereas Satya Narayan Maharana
(Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022), preferred W.A.
No.1343 of 2023. Both the Writ Appeals were
dismissed/disposed of on 04.08.2023 and 06.03.2024
Page 32 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
respectively as infructuous, thereby confirming the
common judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022.
11.2. Further, without any application seeking leave of
the Court to cancel the selection process on the ground of
procedural irregularity , as was suggested by the Hon‟ble
Speaker, Odisha Legislative Assembly vide his note sheet
dated 17.11.2022, as suggested vide note sheet dated
15.11.2022 of the Principal Secretary to Government (I/c),
Law Department, Bhubaneswar, on the plea of
implementation of the said judgment dated
19.05.2023(supra), that too during pendency of the Writ
Appeal No.1458 of 2023, the impugned notice was issued
thereby compelling the Petitioners to approach this Court
again in form of present Writ Petition.
11.3. Admittedly, prior to the date of dismissal of W.A.
No.1458 of 2023 on 04.08.2023, the impugned notice dated
21st July, 2023 had already been issued by the O.S.D-cum-
Secretary to the Hon‟ble Acting Speaker of the Odisha
Legislative Assembly and the Petitioners had already
preferred the present Writ Petition on 24.07.2023. Hence,
Page 33 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
on bringing the said fact to the notice of the Division Bench
of this Court on 04.08.2023, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, who was also representing them in W.A.
No.1458 of 2023, they being arrayed as Respondents, fairly
conceded before the Division Bench that, in view of the
cancellation of the entire selection process, even though it
was illegal and under challenge in the present Writ Petition,
the Writ Appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal stood dismissed as infructuous vide order
dated 04.08.2023, which has been annexed to the Counter
Affidavit of the Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure-B/1 to
demonstrate before this Court as if the present Petitioners
conceded to such illegal action of the Opposite Party No.1
for cancellation of the entire selection process for the posts
of Reporters pursuant to the advertisement dated
26.01.2021.
11.4. As is revealed from the impugned notice dated
21.07.2023, as at Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition,
though the Selection Board took note of the judgment
dated 19.05.2023 (supra) , but contrary to the
observations made vide the said judgment, it was
Page 34 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
observed that it is not appropriate to recommend the
names of the Petitioners for appointment to the posts of
Reporters of Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat in
the absence of any verification or even perusal of the
original documents relating to the recruitment
examination of Reporters. The relevant paragraphs of the
impugned notice dated 21.07.2023 are reproduced below
for ready reference.
"AND WHEREAS, the Selection Board having
perused the judgment dated 19.05.2023 of
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa passed in WP(C)
No.31988 of 2021 and WP(C) No.6171 of 2022
observed that it is not appropriate to recommend the
names of the petitioners for appointment to the post of
Reporters of Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat
in the absence of any verification or even
perusal of the original documents relating to
the recruitment examination of Reporters
pursuant to the advertisement dated
26.01.2021. On an overall consideration of the
factual scenario, the Selection Board recommended
that the entire selection process for the posts of
Reporters pursuant to the advertisement dated
26.01.2021 be cancelled and a fresh recruitment be
conducted in a transparent and fair manner.
AND WHEREAS, on 19.07.2023 the Hon'ble Acting
Speaker has approved the minutes of the meeting of
the Selection Board for cancellation of the entire
selection process for the posts of Reporters pursuant
to the advertisement dated 26.01.2021."
(Emphasis supplied)
11.5. As is further revealed from the aforesaid
paragraphs, the only reason for not recommending the
Page 35 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
names of the Petitioners by the Selection Board was
absence of any verification or perusal of the original
documents relating to the recruitment examination of
Reporters so also recommendation of the Selection Board
for cancellation of the entire selection process for the
posts of Reporters and approval of such recommendation
by the Hon‟ble Acting Speaker on 19.07.2023.
11.6. In view of the findings of the coordinate Bench in
its common judgment dated 19.05.2023, as extracted
above, which attained finality on dismissal of the W.A.
No.1458 of 2023 preferred by OLA, so also disposal of W.A.
No. 1343 of 2023 preferred by Satya Narayan Maharana
and dismissal of W.P.(C) No.8181 of 2021 on 03.03.2021
preferred by one Priyabrata Mohanty challenging the
eligibility criteria for selection and appointment to the posts
of Reporters, this Court is of the view that the Opposite
Party No.1-Odisha Legislative Assembly was not justified to
cancel the selection process for appointment in the posts of
Reporters pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.01.2021
and take a decision to issue fresh advertisement for filling
up such posts and such action of the Opposite Party No.1
Page 36 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
is hit by the principle of res judicata and deserves
interference. In view of such findings of this Court, Issue
Nos. (i) & (ii) are answered accordingly in favour of the
Petitioners.
12. So far as Issues No (iii), law is well settled that
mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected
candidate to be appointed. At the same time, law is also
well settled that when a large number of posts are lying
vacant and the selection process having been followed, the
employer must satisfy as to why it did not consider
appointing the selected candidates. Just because discretion
has been vested with the Authority, it does not mean such
discretion can be exercised arbitrarily. Law is also well
settled that when the employer is the State, it must give
some justifiable non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the
post and it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the
Constitution. It cannot, without any rhyme or reason,
decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible
reason for not filling up the posts. Though the Courts
would normally not question the justification but the
justification must be reasonable and should not be an
Page 37 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion
vested in the State.
13. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (Supra), the
Supreme Court held as follows:
"6. Our country is governed by the rule of law.
Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When
an employer invites applications for filling up a large
number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth
apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form
and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend
time to prepare for the examination. They spend time
and money to travel to the place where written test is
held. If they qualify the written test they have to
again travel to appear for the interview and medical
examination, etc. Those who are successful and
declared to be passed have a reasonable
expectation that they will be appointed. No
doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested
right. However, the State must give some
justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling
up the post. When the employer is the State it is
bound to act according to Article 14 of the
Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or
reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give
some plausible reason for not filling up the
posts. The courts would normally not question the
justification but the justification must be reasonable
and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or
whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It
is in the light of these principles that we need to
examine the contentions of SECR."
(Emphasis supplied)
13.1. In R.S. Mittal (Supra), the Supreme Court,
vide Paragraph Nos.6 & 10, held as follows:
"6. Assuming that there was only one vacancy as
claimed by the Central Government, there was gross
delay on the part of the Central Government in
initiating action to fill the same. The vacancy became
Page 38 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
available on 14-8-1988 and, according to the chart
placed on record by the Central Government, the
action was initiated on 28-2-1989. We fail to
understand what the Government meant by the
expression "initiating action". The character
and antecedents verifications, if any, should
have been got done as soon as the
recommendation of the Selection Board was
received. No material has been placed on record
and none was brought to our notice during the
course of arguments to show as to why the
Central Government could not initiate action as
soon as the vacancy was made available.
Needless to say that the recommendation of the
Selection Board headed by a sitting Judge of
this Court was gathering dust in the records of
the Ministry concerned since 25-1-1988. We take
serious view of the matter and we direct that
any recommendation of a Selection Board which
is headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must
be given prompt and immediate attention. Once
there is a recommendation by such a Selection
Board, nothing should intervene between the
recommendation and the consideration by the
Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The
Minister/Secretary in the Administrative
Department is under a legal obligation and is
duty-bound to process the recommendation of
the Selection Board by giving it a top priority
and place the same before the ACC within a
reasonable time. In the present case though the
action was stated to be initiated on 28-2-1989 the
reference to the ACC was made on 1-5-1989. We
direct that the recommendations of the Selection
Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must
be placed before the ACC expeditiously and
preferably within two months from the date of
recommendation.
xxx xxx
xxx
10. The Tribunal dismissed the application by the
impugned judgment on the following reasoning:
(a) The selection panel was merely a list of
persons found suitable and does not clothe the
applicants with any right of appointment. The
recommendations of the Selection Board were
directory and not mandatory and were not
Page 39 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
therefore enforceable by issue of a writ of
mandamus by the Court.
(b) The letter of Ministry of Home Affairs dated
8-2-1982 which extends the life of panel till
exhausted is not relevant in the present case.
In the circumstances the life of the panel in
this case cannot go beyond 18 months and as
such expired in July 1989.
It is no doubt correct that a person on the select
panel has no vested right to be appointed to the
post for which he has been selected. He has a
right to be considered for appointment. But at
the same time, the appointing authority cannot
ignore the select panel or decline to make the
appointment on its whims. When a person has
been selected by the Selection Board and there
is a vacancy which can be offered to him,
keeping in view his merit position, then,
ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him
for appointment. There has to be a justifiable
reason to decline to appoint a person who is on
the select panel. In the present case, there has been
a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No
reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason,
was given as to why the appointments were not
offered to the candidates expeditiously and in
accordance with law. The appointment should have
been offered to Mr Murgad within a reasonable time
of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the
next candidate. The Central Government's approach
in this case was wholly unjustified."
(Emphasis supplied)
13.2. In Sachin Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate
Service Selection Board, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631
it was held by the Supreme Court as follows;
"35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not
reinvent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several
decisions of this Court have dealt with the
fundamental issue of when the process of an
examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the
answer to the issue turns upon whether the
irregularities in the process have taken place at a
systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the
Page 40 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
process. There are cases which border upon or
cross over into the domain of fraud as a result
of which the credibility and legitimacy of the
process is denuded. This constitutes one end of
the spectrum where the authority conducting
the examination or convening the selection
process comes to the conclusion that as a result
of supervening event or circumstances, the
process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option
but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision
along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon
a fact-finding exercise into individual acts
involving the use of malpractices or unfair
means. Where recourse to unfair means has
taken place on a systemic scale, it may be
difficult to segregate the tainted from the
untainted participants in the process. Large-
scale irregularities including those which have
the effect of denying equal access to similarly
circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a
malaise which has eroded the credibility of the
process. At the other end of the spectrum are
cases where some of the participants in the
process who appear at the examination or
selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such
a case, it may well be possible to segregate
persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from
others who have adhered to the rules and to
exclude the former from the process. In such a
case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing
should not pay a price for those who are
actually found to be involved in irregularities.
By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the
untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster
by taking the selection process to its logical
conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative
procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it
finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which
public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair
and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to
the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1)
is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable
process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as
well. Where the recruitment to public
employment stands vitiated as a consequence of
systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire
process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand,
where it is possible to segregate persons who
Page 41 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
have indulged in malpractices and to penalise
them for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to
impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those
who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and
the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to
the consequence of the cancellation of the entire
process would be contrary to Article 14 because
unequals would then be treated equally. The
requirement that a public body must act in fair and
reasonable terms animates the entire process of
selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are
hence subject to judicial control subject to the
settled principle that the recruiting authority
must have a measure of discretion to take
decisions in accordance with law which are best
suited to preserve the sanctity of the process.
Now it is in the backdrop of these principles that it
becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of
this Court which hold the field."
"66. Recruitment to public services must
command public confidence. Persons who are
recruited are intended to fulfill public functions
associated with the functioning of the
Government. Where the entire process is found
to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly
cause hardship to a few who may not
specifically be found to be involved in
wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify
the ultimate decision to cancel an examination
where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts
through the entire process so as to seriously
impinge upon the legitimacy of the
examinations which have been held for
recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal
have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on
the report of the second Committee which was
confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of
the second Committee is only one facet of the matter.
The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going
beyond it and ultimately recommending that the
entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the
findings which were arrived at in the report of the
first Committee. Those findings do not stand
obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with
those findings. In this view of the matter, both the
judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are
unsustainable."
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 42 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
13.3. In Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra), it was held by
the Supreme Court as follows;
"64. 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
13.4. In State of Assam (Supra), which was relied
upon by the learned Counsel for both the parties, it was
held by the Supreme Court as follows;
"55. What follows from the above is that each case
has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It has to
be pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the
Court that the decision of the recruiting
authority (to cancel the entire process because
of wrongdoing by some tainted elements and not
save a part of the process, to the extent it could
be saved, to the utter detriment of the interests
of the innocent) is wholly disproportionate to
the risk and overly severe relative to what is at
stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision
to be irrational.
56. Based on what has been discussed in the
paragraphs preceding consideration of the authorities
cited by Mr Goswami, the appellants' decision in
Page 43 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
cancelling the entire selection process initiated vide
the advertisement dated 23-7-2014 relying on the
note of the PCCF dated 4-7-2016, and not part of it, in
our considered opinion, does not seem to be either
arbitrary or unreasonable or without any sense of
proportion. Since the earlier process did border on
fraud, in the light of the reservation policy not being
respected and observance of the decisions of this
Court (that meritorious reserved category candidates
are entitled to be accommodated in the open category)
in breach, there was a brazen violation which was
sought to be corrected and, if we may say, justifiably
so. It has not been proved to our satisfaction
that the impugned decision of cancelling the
select list is the neat result of an injudicious
exercise of discretion and was ill-directed in the
guise of achieving the sanctity of the entire
selection process."
(Emphasis supplied)
13.5. In Shankarsan Dash (Supra), which was also
relied upon by the learned Counsel for both the parties, it
was decided by the Constitution Bench as follows;
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate
number of candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an
invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire
any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to
fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does
not mean that the State has the license of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not
to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona
fide for appropriate reasons. And if the
vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State
is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test,
and no discrimination can be permitted. This
correct position has been consistently followed by this
Page 44 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the
decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander
Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 :
(1974) 1 SCR 165], Neelima Shangla v. State of
Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] ,
or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC
122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899]."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. From the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme
Court it is amply clear that a person on the select panel has
no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has
been selected, though he has a right to be considered for
appointment. But at the same time, the appointing
authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make
the appointment on its whims. When a person has been
selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy
which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit
position, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him
for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to
decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. 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
Page 45 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
from the select list. It has to be pleaded and proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that the decision of the recruiting
authority, to cancel the entire process is because of
wrongdoing by some tainted elements and not save a part
of the process, to the extent it could be saved, to the utter
detriment of the interests of the innocent, is wholly
disproportionate to the risk and overly severe relative to
what is at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision
to be irrational. The decisions of the recruiting body would
be subjected to judicial control and scrutiny, subject to the
settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a
measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with
law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the
process.
15. In the present case, the coordinate Bench, after
calling for the original selection records and examining the
same, so also hearing the parties and taking into
consideration the stand of the Opposite Party No-1 in its
Counter filed in W.P.(C) No-6171 of 2022, came to a
conclusion that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide
any valid/legal justification in coming to a conclusion to
Page 46 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
cancel the recruitment process after almost one and half
years after the final select list was recommended by the
Examination Committee. Accordingly, a direction was given
to the Opposite Party No.1 to place the names of the
present Petitioners before the Selection Board, which were
uploaded in the website of Odisha Legislative Assembly on
28.09.2021, and to take necessary action pursuant to the
decision of the Selection Board and approval of such
decision by the Hon‟ble Speaker within a specified period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of
the said judgment. It was further observed that if the
Selection Board gives its concurrence to the list of selected
candidates; the Opposite Parties shall do well to give
appointment to the Petitioners against the posts of
Reporters.
16. Though there was no ambiguity in the said
common judgment dated 19.05.2023, instead of
implementing the said direction within the specified
period , the Opposite Party No-1 preferred Writ Appeal
No. 1458 of 2023 being aggrieved by the observations so
also direction given vide the said Judgment. However,
Page 47 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
during pendency of the said Appeal, misinterpreting the
said common judgment to be an open remand, the
impugned notice dated 21.07.2023 was issued, thereby
cancelling the entire selection process to the posts of
Reporters. Such cancelation was basically on the ground
that the original documents pertaining to such selection
were not available for verification by the Selection Board,
which has been extracted in para 11.4 above. Hence, in
view of the observations of the coordinate Bench in its
common judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 31988 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No-6171 of 2022, so also
the settled position of law, detailed above, this Court is of
the view that the Petitioners have a legal right to pray for
setting aside the said cancellation notice and to seek for a
direction from this Court for their appointment in the
posts of Reporters, as the Opposite Parties have failed
plead and prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the
decision of the recruiting authority, to cancel the entire
process of selection vide the impugned notice dated.
21.07.2023, as at Annexure-7, was justified. Issue No-3
is answered accordingly in favour of the Petitioners.
Page 48 of 49
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
17. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated
21.07.2023, as at Annexure-7, is set aside. The Opposite
Party No.1 is directed to do all the remaining formalities as
per Rule 7(2) of the Rules 1983, if it is so required, and
appointment letters be issued in favour of the Petitioners
for the posts of Reporters in Odisha Legislative Assembly,
in terms of the advertisement dated 26.01.2021, within
four weeks from the date of production/communication of
the certified copy of this Judgment.
18. The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.
...................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd July, 2026/Prasant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 49 of 49
Signed by:
WP(C) No.23353 ofPRASANT
2023 KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 04-Jul-2026 12:50:26
SPONSORED
