The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State Administrative Tribunal's decision to uphold the OPSC's recruitment order, which determined merit based on written examination marks rather than viva voce for lecturer vacancies. The Court found no reason to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 15431 of 2006
“Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Civil Service Rules would not be applicable for recruitment of lectures it was his contention that in civil service personality factor plays an important role and in the case of lecturers academic career is of greater important and therefore, the OP.S.C. might not have given higher credence to viva voce test. We take notice of this contention. Indeed, in civil service examination the criteria for recruitment could be different from the criteria for recruitment in the case of the lectures . Further learned counsel for the O.P.S.C. referring to Rule 9(2) of the Orissa Education Service, Class-II Recruitment to the School Branch) Rule, 1971 submitted that the order of merit shall be determined in accordance with the highest marks in the aggregate secured by such candidates in the written examination. Rule 9(2) of the said rules read as follows:
“9(2). If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the order of merit shall be determined in accordance with the highest marks in aggregate secured by such candidates in the written examination and should also the marks secured by them in the written examination be equal, the order of
-2-
merit shall be determined in accordance with the highest marks secured in any Master’s Degree Examination.”
In the conspectus of facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that Respondent-4 has already rendered service for 14 years and the facts that no discrimination as such has been committed by the respondents we decline to quash Annexure-2 orders and dismiss this application as being devoid of merit. We also observe that Respondent-1 should take appropriate step for including a provision in the rule to deal with an eventuality of this nature so as to render the solution transparent and fair.”
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
SKJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the State Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the recuitment merit dispute regarding lecturers.
Whether the OPSC order determining merit based on written examination marks requires quashing under Article 226.
Petitioner
Opposite Party/O.P.S.C./Respondents
K.S. Jhaveri
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
