ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, 1950

***

1. Devranjan Dang
Aged about 24 years
Son of Dwitiya Dang
At: Saraswatipur
P.O.: Khairmal
P.S.: Manamunda
District: Boudh

2. Aurobinda Pradhan
Aged about 26 years
Son of Chyaban Pradhan
At: Sindhupali, P.O.: Budido
P.S.: Reamal
District: Deogarh.

3. Tapan Kumar Behera

Aged about 25 years
Son of Sarat Kumar Behera
At: Aliha, P.O.: Singiri
P.S.: Aul, District: Kendrapada.

4. Jiban Jyoti Rout

Aged about 27 years
Son of Ramesh Chandra Rout
At: Kandabindha, P.O.: Kandabindha

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 1 of 83

 P.S.: Kandabindha
District:Dhenkanal.

5. Laxmi Kanta Mohanta

Aged about 22 years
Son of Sukesh Kumar Mohanta
At: Kesharpir, P.O.: Kesharpur
P.S.: Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj.

6. Abhipsa Jena
Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Bidhubhusan Jena
At: Kumbhiragadia, P.O.:Kumbhiragadia
P.S.: Jajpur Road, District: Jajpur.

7. Manaswini Nayak
Aged about 25 years
Daughter of Agasti Nayak
At: Guptinagar, P.O.: Kamakhyanagar
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.

8. Laxminarayan Rout
Aged about 23 years
Son of Bhimasen Rout
At: Godhan, P.O.: Bachharai
P.S.: Patkura
District: Kendrapada.

9. Aditya Kumar Panda

Aged about 23 years
Son of Sushanta Panda
At: Chhelia, P.O.: Chhelia
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 2 of 83

10. Biswa Ranjan Barik
Aged about 22 years
Son of Kunjabihari Barik
At: Bilipada, P.O.: Binayakpur
P.S.: Bilipada, District: Puri.

11. Subhakanta Baral

Aged about 21 years
Son of Madhaba Chandra Baral
At: Rahangagorada, P.O.: Khandasahi
District: Puri.

12. Sabyasachi Dehury

Aged about 28 years
Son of Rudracharan Dehury
At: Kaimati, P.O.: Kaimati
District: Dhenkanal.

13. Sashibhusan Das

Aged about 23 years
Son of Bharat Chandra Das
At: Nachhipuria, P.O.: Nachhipuria
District: Mayurbhanj.

14. Dileswar Mirdha

Aged about 24 years
Son of Dasaratha Mirdha
At: Patuabahal, P.O.: Dangarapada
P.S.: Dangarapada
District: Sambalpur.

15. Nilachal Sahoo

Aged about 28 years
Son of Tirthabasi Sahoo
At: Sarapali, P.O.: Gaudapada
P.S.: Gaudapada, District: Sambalpur.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 3 of 83
16. Sudeep Kumar Behera
Aged about 24 years
Son of Sudarshan Behera
At: Digariastia, P.O.: Kuliana
P.S.: Mayurbhanj
District: Mayurbhanj.

17. Jushman Pradhan

Aged about 26 years
Son of Khadu Pradhan
At: Hatibahal, P.O.:Badabahal
P.S.: Rairakhole
District: Sambalpur.

18. Upendra Mohanta

Aged about 25 years
Son of Dibakar Mohanta
At: Ambapunja, P.O.: Ambapunja
P.S.: Chandua
District: Mayurbhanj.

19. Surendra Mehera

Aged about 24 years
Son of Duryodhan Meher
At: Kendupali, P.O.: Kamalpur
P.S.: Birmaharajpur
District: Sonepur.

20. Bikash Swain

Aged about 24 years
Son of Panchanan Swain
At: Jogindrapur, P.O.: Sadanandapur
P.S.: Mamamunda, District: Boudh.

21. Barsharanee Samal

Aged about 23 years
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 4 of 83
 Daughter of Bighneswar Samal
At: Magipur, P.O.: Jajpur
District: Jajpur.

22. Sushree Suman

Aged about 24 years
Son of Sushanta Kumar Parida
At: Jadumani Nagar, P.O.: Nayagarh
P.S.: Nayagarh, District: Nayagarh.

23. Ramamohan Das,

Aged about 27 years
Son of Kashyap Kumar Das
At: Rangas, P.O.: Chhatrapada
P.S.: Pritipur, District: Jajpur.

24. Arun Kumar Mohanta

Aged about 31 years
Son of Rabindra Mohanta
At: Kunjia, P.O./P.S.: Tato
District: Mayurbhanj.

25. Anubhab Mohanty

Aged about 24 years
Son of Gopal Chandra Mohanty
At: Soharia, P.O.: Soharia
P.S.: Bhogarai, District: Balasore.

26. Dipti Ranjan Pradhan

Aged about 24 years
Son of Padmanav Pradhan
At: Ambagadia Sahi, P.O.: Sadha
P.S.: Naha, District: Keonjhar.

27. Chittaranjan Nayak

Aged about 25 years

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 5 of 83

 Son of Braja Mohan Nayak
At: Bhagabanpur, P.O.: Bhagabanpur
P.S.: Bhagabanpur, District: Nayagarh.

28. Bhakti Prasad Satapathy

Aged about 27 years
Son of Prasanna Kumar Satapathy
At: Gangadharpur Sasan
P.O.: Gangadharpur Sasan
District: Khurda.

29. Nabin Kumar Pradhan

Aged about 28 years
Son of Ganeswar Pradhan
At: Sunamuhin, P.O.: Baripada
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.

30. Abinash Prasad Sahoo

Aged about 26 years
Son of Ramakanta Sahoo
At: Gondia, P.O.: Gondia
P.S.: Gondia, District: Dhenkanal.

31. Anshuman Samantaray

Aged about 25 years
Son of Ashok Kumar Samantaray
At: Hirapur, P.O.: Botalam
P.S./ District: Khurda.

32. Omprava Khuntia

Aged about 24 years
Daughter of Subash Kumar Khuntia
At: Belabahali, P.O.: Belabahali
P.S.: Belabahali, District: Keonjhar.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 6 of 83

33. Amit Sekhar Jagadev
Aged about 23 years
Son of Ratnakar Jagadev
At: Narasinghpur, P.O.: Narasinghpur
P.S.: Narasinghpur, District: Nayagarh.

34. Debashis Nayak

Aged about 24 years
Son of Uttam Charan Nayak
At: Gandhapur, P.O.: Gandhapur
P.S.: Jagatsinghpur
District: Jagatsinghpur.

35. Pujarinee Behera

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Prahallad Behera
At: Palasama, P.O.: Palasama
P.S./ District: Deogarh.

36. Ashirbad Sa
Aged about 24 years
Son of Dhruba Sa
At: Tarabha, P.O.: Tarabha
P.S.: Tarabha, District: Sonepur.

37. Siva Achary

Aged about 28 years
Son of Siva Sankar Achary
At: Mayachhak, P.O.: Muktiguda
P.S.: Muktiguda, District: Kalahandi.

38. Arpan Samanta

Aged about 23 years
Son of Purushottam Samanta
At: Dharanabeda, P.O.: Mantriguda
P.S.: Mantriguda, District: Nabarangpur.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 7 of 83
39. Matruprasad Dash
Aged about 22 years
Son of Santosh Kumar Dash
At: Dudurkote, P.O.: Nandapur
P.S.: Hindol, District: Dhenkanal.

40. Karunakar Kuanr

Aged about 23 years
Son of Ghundu Kuanr
At: Mahada, P.O.: Mahada
P.S.: Mahada, District: Mahada.

41. Jagannath Pradhan

Aged about 26 years
Son of Hrudananda Pradhan
At: Khaliapasi, P.O.: Kundheigola
P.S.: Kundheigola, District: Deogarh.

42. Pabitra Mohan Sahu

Aged about 21 years
Son of Pradeep Kumar Sahu
At: Paunshakuli, P.O.: Gambharia
P.S.: Paunshakuli
District: Balasore.

43. Subhasmita Rout

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Susanta Ranjan Rout
At: Rampur, P.O.: Ramakrushnapur
P.S.: Barapada, District: Bhadrak.

44. Trinath Mohanta

Aged about 23 years
Son of Pratap Chandra Mahanta
At: Bhurukundi, P.O.: Bhurukundi
P.S.: Purinda, District: Mayurbhanj.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 8 of 83
45. Soumya Ranjan Nayak
Aged about 24 years
Son of Niranjan Nayak
At: Balugaon, P.O.: Balugaon
P.S.: Balugaon, District: Nayagarh.

46. Abhishek Das

Aged about 24 years
Son of Ashok Kumar Das
At: Pahala, P.O.: Pahala
P.S.: Balianta, District: Khurda.

47. Soumyaranjan Ojha

Aged about 24 years
Son of Rabindra Kumar Ojha
At: Alana, P.O.: Kuradha
P.S.: Kuradha, District: Jagatsinghpur.

48. Saleena Garnayak

Aged about 21 years
Daughter of Nishakara Garnayak
At: Bajrakote, P.O.: Bajrakote
District: Angul.

49. Mitrabindarani Pradhan

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Jogendra Pradhan
At: Khairamal, P.O.: Jogipadar
P.S.: Khairamal, District: Boudh.

50. Tapaswini Mishra

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Sanjib Kumar Mishra
At: Korttal, P.O.: Sainto
P.S./District: Jagatsinghpur.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 9 of 83

51. Pradyumna Das
Aged about 25 years
Son of Prafulla Kumar Das
At: Sarbodaya Nagar
P.O.: Talabania,
P.S/District: Puri.

52. Subrat Kumar Dehury

Aged about 28 years
Son of Prafulla Kumar Dehury
At: Nathua, P.O.: Mahapada
P.S.: Mahapada, District: Dhenkanal.

53. Tapan Kumar Pradhan

Aged about 33 years
Son of Rebati Mohan Pradhan
At: Dhauragotha, P.O.: Reamal
P.S.: Rengalbeda, District: Deogarh.

54. Rohitaswa Pradhan

Aged about 29 years
Son of Purna Chandra Pradhan
At/P.O./P.S.: Kundhigola
District: Deogarh.

55. Saswat Kumar Sahoo

Aged about 28 years
Son of Rabindra Kumar Sahoo
At: Nua Bhuban, P.O.: Bhuban
P.S.: Bhuban, District: Dhenkanal.

56. Shibani Prasad Sahoo

Aged about 29 years
Son of Shishir Kumar Sahoo
At: Bamuan, P.O.: Baruan

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 10 of 83

 P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.

57. Manas Ranjan Nayak

Aged about 28 years
Son of Mangaraj Nayak
At/P.O.: Madhaba, P.S.: Niali
District: Cuttack.

58. Jayanta Kumar Mohanta

Aged about 23 years
Son of Taranisen Mohanta
At/P.O/P.S.: Purunia
District: Mayurbhanj.

59. Pravat Kumar Sahoo

Aged about 25 years
Son of Gouri Sankar Sahoo
At: Bada Gahama
P.O./P.S.: Maitapur
District: Bhadrak.

60. Tapan Kumar Barik

Aged about 26 years
Son of Birendranath Barik
At: Mandar, P.O./P.S.: Bhabanipatna
District: Kalahandi.

61. Sushree Sasmita Nayak

Aged about 24 years
Daughter of Debasis Nayak
At/P.O.: Similiguda
P.S./District: Koraput.

62. Satyaprakash Tripathy

Aged about 23 years

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 11 of 83

 Son of Sudhanshu Tripathy
At: Belda, P.O.: Khandatara
P.S./District: Bhadrak.

63. Tikeswari Dani

Aged about 22 years
Daughter of Netrananda Dani
At/P.O.: Balisankara
P.S./District: Sundargarh.

64. Harsad Mohanta

Aged about 28 years
Son of Bhaktabandhu Mohanta
At: Godipokhari, P.O.: Rangamatia
P.S.: Baripada, District: Mayurbhanj.

65. Baisakhi Swain

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Tophan Kumar Swain
At/P.O.: Mathakaragola
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar
District: Dhenkanal.

66. Pabitra Kumar Khilar

Aged about 28 years
Son of Kishore Chandra Khilar
At: Sundaria, P.O.: Neulapur
P.S.: Chandikhole, District: Jajpur.

67. Subham Pradhan

Aged about 27 years
Son of Biswanath Pradhan
At/P.O.: Jakaikela, P.S.: Bonei
District: Sundargarh.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 12 of 83

68. Smrutinjaya Sahoo
Aged about 25 years
Son of Duryodhan Pradhan
At/P.O.: Satyabhamapur
P.S./District: Cuttack.

69. Kailash Amareswar Patra

Aged about 22 years
Son of Kanduru Patra
At/P.O.: Digdar, P.S.: Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj.

70. Sukka Soumya

Aged about 24 years
Son of Sukka Prakash Rao
At/P.O.: Goribandha
P.S.: Idudi, District: Gajapati.

71. Lipika Mohanta

Aged about 23 years
Daughter of Mohan Chandra Mohanta
At: Dalamkucha,P.O.: Kundheikela
P.S./District: Sundargarh.

72. Mrutyunjaya Pradhan

Aged about 23 years
Son of Birendra Kumar Pradhan
At: Niladri Bihar 3rd Lane
P.O/P.S.: Bhanjanagar
District: Ganjam.

73. Pritam Priyabrata Chand

Aged about 25 years
Son of Lingaraj Chand
At: Bibhutipur,P.O/P.S.: Kakatpur
District: Puri.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 13 of 83
74. Ajay Kumar Pradhan
Aged about 23 years
Son of Dhanajaya Pradhan
At: Padakhola, P.O.: Sarapali
P.S.: Sarapali, District: Sambalpur.

75. Siba Prasad Nayak

Aged about 31 years
Son of Balakrushna Behera
At/P.O.: Baramunda
P.S.: Khandagiri
District: Khurda. … Petitioners.

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture and
Farmers Empowerment
Krushi Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha.

2. Director
Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development
Krushi Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha.

3. Vice-Chancellor, OUAT, Siripur

Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 003, Odisha.

4. Odisha Staff Selection Commission

Represented through
Secretary
Unit-II, Bhubaneswar
PIN: 751 001, Odisha. … Opposite parties.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 14 of 83
 AND

1. Nirupama Tarai
Aged about 26 years
Daughter of Arjuna Tarai
At: Pandara, P.O.: GGP Colony
P.S.: Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar
District: Khurda, PIN: 751 025.

2. Rabi Narayan Das

Aged about 25 years
Son of Dhaneswar Das
At: Chilapatana, P.O.: Gabakunda
P.S.: Satyabadi, District: Puri
PIN: 752 045.

3. Sudhansu Sahoo
Aged about 27 years
Son of Bharat Sahoo
At/P.O./Village: Nischita Sasan
P.S.: Kudanagari, District: Kendrapara.

4. Mangulu Choudhury
Aged about 29 years
Son of Rajendra Choudhury
At/Village/P.O.: Manikyapur
P.S.: Badagada, District: Ganjam.

5. Sangeeta Tirkey
Aged about 30 years
Daughter of Sailash Tirkey
At/Village/P.O.: Tilia, P.S.: Talasara
District: Sundergarh.

6. Biswanath Saga
Aged about 32 years
Son of Bidyadhar Saha
Village: Chpundia, P.O.: Samana
P.S.: Nandipada
District: Keonjhar. … Interveners.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 15 of 83

 Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi,

Ms. Sonali Panigrahi,
Advocates

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shantanu Das,

Nos.1 and 2 Additional Standing Counsel

For the Opposite Party : M/s. Sanjib Swain,

No.4 Siddharth Swain
Dibyojyoti Nayak, Advocates

For the Interveners : M/s. Sourav Das,

Rajat Kumar Mishra,
Tigmanshu Pattnaik,
Ms. Anwesha Mishra,
Ajaya Kumar Pradhan,
Saroj Kumar Swain,
Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Advocates

P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Dates of Hearing : 06.11.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 06.12.2024

J UDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN,J.—

Advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC, dated

13.06.2023 inviting applications between 26.06.2023
to 26.07.2023 to appoint inter alia 245 numbers of
“Soil Conservation Extension Worker” in the
Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Department in the Category of Group-C vide
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 16 of 83
 Annexure-12 is under challenge before this Court in
the present writ petition beseeching to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the
following prayer(s):

“It is therefore prayed that, in view of the facts and

circumstance of the above case, this Hon‟ble Court may
be graciously pleased to admit this writ application,
issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
by directing the opposite parties to show cause as to
why the advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC,
dated 13.06.2023, for the recruitment of the post of Soil
Conservation Extension Worker, Group-C only as per
Annexure-12 shall not be quashed;

And if the opp. Parties fail to show cause or show

insufficient cause, then this Hon‟ble Court may pass
any appropriate order as this Hon‟ble Court may deem
fit and proper for the ends of justice

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty

bound shall ever pray.”

Facts as stated in the writ petition:

2. Suffice it to refer to relevant factual matrix as outlined

in the pleadings.

2.1. The Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology

(OUAT), Bhubaneswar had established Agro-
Polytechnic Centres at Mahisapat in the district of
Dhenkanal, Ranital in the district of Bhadrak,
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 17 of 83
 Deogarh, Boudh, Panposh in the district of
Sundargarh, Bolangir, Keonjhar, Semiliguda in the
district of Koraput, Chipilima in the district of
Sambalpur and Rangeilunda in the district of
Berhampur for offering two-years Diploma Course in
four disciplines, viz., Agriculture Science, Horticulture
Science, Animal Science and Fishery Science. During
the period of two-years Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic
Course, the students get trained in technical skill and
knowledge to meet the demand of new generation
agriculture in the State of Odisha.

2.2. The petitioners after being qualified in the Higher

Secondary Examination (+2, Science Stream), have
also undertaken further qualification of two-years
Diploma Course in “Agro–Polytechnic”/“Agriculture
Science”/“Horticulture Science” under the Odisha
University of Agriculture and Technology,
Bhubaneswar.

2.3. Though the Government of Odisha have introduced

two-years Diploma Course in Agro-Polytechnic since
the Academic Session 2012-13, no corresponding
opportunity of employment in the category either
Group-C or Group-B has yet been put in place. On the
other hand, the State Public Service Commissions in
the States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamilnadu

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 18 of 83

 and Kerala, have floated advertisements/Notifications
by indicating that two-years Diploma in Agriculture
qualified candidates are eligible to apply for the posts
of Agriculture Officer Grade-II/Group-B posts.

2.4. Though other States have given the opportunity to

such Diploma holders, in the State of Odisha the
Odisha Public Service Commission has invited
applications by virtue of Advertisement No.13 of 2020-
21, for recruitment to the post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer in Class-II (Group-B) of the
Odisha Soil Conservation Service under the
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment Department,
from candidates possessing a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Agriculture or Bachelor of Science Degree in
Horticulture or Bachelor Degree in Agriculture
Engineering or Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry
from any recognised University or Institution. In the
Advertisement No.4 of 2022-23 also recruitment to the
post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in Class-II of
Group-B of the Odisha Agriculture and Food
Production Service under the Department of
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment required a
candidate to possess “Degree in Agriculture or
Horticulture or equivalent qualification from any
University or Institution recognized by any State
Government or the Government of India”.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 19 of 83
2.5. The candidates who have passed two-years Diploma
Course in Agro-Polytechnic of Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar have been
deprived of to apply for any corresponding opportunity
of employment under the Government of Odisha in the
Agriculture and Food Production Department and its
allied Departments. As the Government of Odisha has
not taken step to provide such Diploma holders the
opportunity of employment, the Director of
Polytechnic, Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology, Bhubaneswar vide Letter dated
19.02.2016 had communicated to the Opposite party
No.2-Soil Conservation and Watershed Department for
granting preference to such Diploma holders for
applying for the post of Village Agriculture Worker
(VAW) and Soil Conservation Extension Worker
(“SCEW”, for short) posts. The content of said letter is
extracted hereunder:

“No.36/DP/Dated 19.02.2016

To
The Commissioner-cum-Director,
Soil Conservation & Watershed,
Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

Sub.: Preference for Diploma students of Agro-

Polytechnic (Agricultural Science) and
(Horticultural Science) OUAT for the post of VAW

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 20 of 83

 and Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) in
your esteemed Department.

Sir/Madam,

I am to inform you that there are 10 Agro-

Polytechnic Centres in 10 Agro-climatic Zones of
Odisha out of which six Centre are for Diploma in
Agricultural Science and two Centres are for
Diploma in Horticultural Science. The students
who pass out this two years Diploma course after
+2 Science are very much technically competent as
per the need of Government and to work at the
grass root level to help the farming community and
to increase the skill of the farmers.

Therefore, I request to give preference in providing

them the jobs like V.A.W. and Soil Conservation
Extension Worker in your esteemed Department.
Your consideration in this regard will definitely
boost the confidence of our students, and also help
the farming community in particular to increase
the production and productivity in Agriculture and
allied sector of the State.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/- 19.02.2016
Director of Polytechnic
OUAT, Bhubaneswar”

2.6. Similarly, for ensuring the students of Diploma in

Agro-Polytechnic (Agriculture) suitable job, the Vice-
Chancellor of Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology, Bhubaneswar issued Letter dated
19.03.2016, which is reproduced hereunder:
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 21 of 83
 “No.92/VC/19th March,2016

To
The Principal Secretary to Govt.
Agriculture Department
Govt. of Odisha
Rajeev Bhawan, Bhubaneswar.

Sub.: Grievance of Diploma in Agro-polytechnic

(Agriculture) students for suitable job opportunities
in Govt. Sector-reg.

Sir,

In inviting a reference to the above subject, I am to

enclose herewith the original representation of
Diploma in Agro-polytechnic (Agril./Hort.) students
for their suitable absorption in Govt. of Odisha
sector.

This is worthwhile to mention that the course

programme of 2 year duration after +2Sc. have
been started from the academic session 2012-13
in 10 centres spread over the State. Out of which
six are in agricultural science and two are in
horticultural science, one each in animal science &
fisheries science. In the meantime the 1st Batch
students have successfully passed out in 2014
acquiring the required knowledge and skill to suit
to the grass root level para professionals / para
extension workers. But so far, have not been
suitably employed in Govt. Sector & its
undertakings. The students are approaching time
and again and pressing hard to the University
Authorities for their employment as mentioned
above.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 22 of 83
 In view of the above facts and due consideration to
the demand of the students it is requested that
these candidates well equipped with technical skill
and knowledge may please be considered for
recruitment to the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW in
various departments under your control with
minimum qualification of Diploma in Agro-
polytechnic only instead of 5% extra weightage in
written examination conducted by Odisha
Subordinate Staff Selection Commission.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Vice-Chancellor.”

2.7. In order to address the difficulties faced by the

Diploma holders in Agro-Polytechnic in Agriculture
Science and Horticulture Science, an Order dated
15.05.2023 has come to be issued to study the
possibility of inclusion of Agro-Polytechnic pass-out
students for preferential treatment in employment
opportunities by the Department of Agriculture and
Farmers‟ Empowerment. Said Order stands thus:

“Government of Odisha
Department of Agriculture & Farmers‟ Empowerment
ORDER
No.DAFE-RESH-MISC-0037-2023/10489/A&FE,
Date 15.05.2023

A Committee is hereby constituted with the

following members to examine the grievance of

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 23 of 83

 Agro-Polytechnic pass-out for appointment in the
posts of VAW, HEW, SCEW and LI etc.
1. Vice-Chancellor, OUAT Chairman
2. Director, Agriculture & FP, Odisha Member
3. Director, Horticulture, Odisha Member
4. Director, Soil Conservation & WD, Odisha Member
5. Additional Secretary to Government Member/
(Research), Deptt. of Agriculture & FE Convenor

The Committee shall go through the

procedures adopted in other states on
inclusion of Agro-Polytechnic pass-out with
preference in appointments in Agriculture
and allied Departments.

Basing on the recommendation of the above

Committee, suitable proposal will be initiated
for Government approval.

By order of the Principal Secretary,

Sd/-
Additional Secretary to Government.”

2.8. It is the case of the petitioners that while the Members

of the Committee were exploring the possibility of
employment opportunity to such Diploma holders, and
have not yet taken decision regarding granting of
preference in appointments to Agro-Polytechnic pass-
out candidates, the issue of Advertisement dated
13.06.2023 by opposite party No.4-Odisha Staff
Selection Commission (“OSSC”, for brevity) to fill up
245 numbers of vacant posts of Soil Conservation
Extension Worker in Group-C Category without

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 24 of 83

 providing for preferential treatment in appointments
without waiting for the decision/recommendation of
the said Committee compelled the petitioners to
approach this Court in the present writ petition.

2.9. Relevant portion of the said Advertisement dated

13.06.2023 is extracted hereunder:

“Advertisement No.IIE-74/2023-2273/OSSC
Date:13.06.2023
Detailed Advertisement for
Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-„C‟
Specialist Posts/Services under various Departments,
Government of Odisha.
(POST CODE:367)
(WEBSITE: www.ossc.gov.in)
1. Application Invited:
Start Date End Date
Online Registration 26.06.2023 24.07.2023
Submission of Online 26.06.2023 26.07.2023
Application Form
Date of editing Online 27.06.2023 30.07.2023
Application Form
Mode of Application Online Mode only through the
website “www.ossc.gov.in” .No
physical copy/Hard copy of the
Online Application Form needs to
be submitted by the applicant.
a. Appointment shall be guided by “Combined
Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts/Services Rules, 2022”.
b. Applications are invited online through the OSSC
website “www.ossc.govt.in” for recruitment to fill up
the vacancies in the following offices under
Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or equivalent

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 25 of 83

 Recruitment Examination for Specialist
posts/services Rules, 2022 for various Departments
of Govt. of Odisha.
Sl. Name of Name of Total Classificatio Pay Matrix
No. Posts/ the No. of n of Posts Level &
Services Department Vacan Scale of
/ Heads of cy Pay (as per
Department 7th Pay
in which Commissio
vacancy n)
exists for
this
recruitment
1. Weaving Directorate 03 Group-B Level-9
Supervisor of Textiles 35,400-
(Provisional) 1,12,400
2. Soil Directorate 245 Group-C Level-5
Conservation of Soil 21700-
Extension Conservati 69,100
Worker on &
Watershed
Developme
nt
3. Technical Directorate 19 Group-C Level-4
Assistant of Textiles 19,900-
(Provisional) 63,200
4. Amin Water 75 Group-C Level-3
Resources 18,000-
Department 56,900
5. Amin Directorate 12 Group-C Level-3
of Town 18,000-
Planning 56,900/-
***
Educational Qualification prescribed for the posts:
The Educational Qualification essential for different posts
are as follows:
Sl.No. Name of the Post Essential Educational
Qualification
1. Weaving Supervisor Must have passed Diploma in
Handloom Technology / Textile
Technology From IIHT/ other
recognized institution.
2. Soil Conservation +2 Science or +2 Vocational course I
Extension Worker Agriculture related subject i.e. Crop
Production (CP)/ Horticulture/ Repair
& Maintenance of Power Driven farm

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 26 of 83

 Machinery (PDFM) from any of the
recognized Board/ Council or
institution.
3. Technical Assistant HSC or Matriculation with
PMF/Handloom Weaving & Design
Training in Govt. organization. The
candidate other than IHWD, Khordha
having done Diploma or any other
course from any other Govt. recognized
institute and intends to apply for the
post will be required to obtain a
certificate from the Head of the
Institute of Handloom Weaving &
Design Khordha, Odisha to the effect
that the syllabus covered in the
Diploma or any other training course
done by them.
4. Amin under Water Must have passed Higher Secondary
Resources Examination (10+2) from Council of
Department Higher Secondary Education, Odisha
or Equivalent Examination and must
have basic computer knowledge.
5. Amin under the HSC and National Trade Certificate
Directorate of Town (NTC) passed in Draughtsman Civil.
Planning
***”

2.10. It is also alleged that the State of Odisha has provided

employment opportunity for selection of successful
candidates of every academic curriculum, yet it has
caused discrimination in the matter of employment to
the two-years Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic pass-out
students by not providing any opportunity of
employment in either Group-C or Group-B category of
posts from the Academic Session 2012-13 till date. As
the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 vide Annexure-12
has been issued with undue haste at the time when
the Committee Members have been exploring

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 27 of 83

 possibility of including such candidates in the lines of
candidates of other States including the neighbouring
State, the opposite parties, therefore, have not treated
the petitioners with fairness and their action is tainted
with arbitrariness, and offends provisions of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The future of
such Diploma holders is in doldrums.

2.11. Hence, the present writ petition.

Hearing:

3. On being noticed, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have

filed counter affidavit on 16.04.2024 and the opposite
party No.4 on 03.05.2024.

3.1. Interlocutory Applications have been filed for

consideration of plight of interveners-petitioners, who
have been declared successful in the process of
recruitment vide Advertisement dated 13.06.2023.

3.2. Since pleadings are complete and 245 numbers of

posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker are
required to be filled up in response to the
Advertisement dated 13.06.2023, as conceded by the
counsel for the respective parties, final hearing of the
matter got concluded on 06.11.2024 and Judgment
has been kept reserved for pronouncement on later
date.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 28 of 83
Contentions, submissions and arguments:

4. Sri Kalpataru Panigrahi, learned Advocate for the

petitioners reiterating facts narrated in the petition
submitted that restricting the applicants eligibility
criteria to “+2 Science or +2 Vocational course I
Agriculture related subject i.e. Crop Production (CP)/
Horticulture/Repair & Maintenance of Power Driven
farm Machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized
Board/ Council or institution.” without affording
opportunity of employment to the Diploma holders of
Agriculture Science and Horticulture Science is
violative of provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

4.1. He has referred to the following observation made by

this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties
vide Order dated 20.07.2023:

“4. On perusal of the advertisement under Annexure-

12, it appears that the said posts belong to Group-
C category and there are altogether 245 posts
advertisement to be filled up pursuant to the
advertisement under Annexure-12.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

the petitioners have done Diploma in Agro-
Polytechnic (Agriculture Science) and (Horticulture
Science). Learned counsel for the petitioners, draw
attention of this Court to the letter dated
15.05.2023 under Annexure-11, submitted that
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 29 of 83
 the Additional Secretary to Government,
Department of Agriculture and Farmers‟
Empowerment have constituted a committed five
members to examine the grievance of Agro-
Polytechnic pass-out candidates for appointment
to the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW and LI etc. The
committee also looked into the matter and submits
a report before the Government. Further, it reveals
that basing on recommendation of the
committable, a suitable proposal initiated for
Government approval. He further contended that
although such decision taken on 15.05.2023 and
a committee was constituted, however,
advertisement was issued by the Odisha Staff
Selection Commission on 13.06.2023 under
Annexure-13 passing the last date of submission
of application on 26.07.2023. Therefore, the main
contain of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that as a result of which the petitioners have been
deprived of liberty to apply for the posts and in the
process to be considered for appointment to such
posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in
course of his argument, also referred to
recommendation made by the Director of
Polytechnic under Annexure-9 as well as Vice-
Chancellor of OUAT, Bhubaneswar dated
19.03.2016 under Annexure-10 wherein it has
been strongly recommended to accept this Agro-
Polytechnic (Agriculture) as well as Horticulture for
appointment for the post of VAW/HEW/SCEW.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to

the advertisement of different States for
recruitment for the post of SCEW submitted that

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 30 of 83

 the other States have accepted Diploma
Agropolytechnic for recruitment to different
categories for the posts to fill up Agriculture and
Horticulture.

7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State, on the other hand, contended that the
petitioners have not approached the departmental
authorities before approaching this Court. He
further contended that so far as the petitioners are
concerned, they should approach the department,
they shall definitely taken decision keeping in
view the constitution of committee under
Annexure-11 and the recommendation made by
Vice-Chancellor, OUAT, Bhubaneswar as well as
Polytechnic has not been forwarded by requisition
of the department several week under Annexure-
12. Therefore, the OSSC has not committed
including some posts in not accepting the
application of the petitioners for appointment to
the advertised posts.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned

counsels appearing for the respective parties,
particularly, keeping in view the fact that the
Additional Secretary to Government, Department
of Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment has
specifically constituted a committed on 15.05.2023
to look into the grievance of Agropolytechnic posts
a few candidates to the post SCEW and while the
committee was examining the said issue, the
OSCC has become advertisement under Annexure-
12. Therefore, this court is of the considered view
that while the case of the petitioners is not
consideration posts to recruitment 245 SCEW.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 31 of 83
 9. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to
hear the matter further altogether issue notice to
the Opposite Parties. Since Mr. T. Pattanaik,
learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Four extra
coipies of the writ petition be served on him by
Monday (24.07.2023).”

5. Per contra, Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional

Standing Counsel has relied on the following
paragraphs to refute the contention of Sri Kalpataru
Panigrahi, learned Advocate:

“6. That, in compliance to the aforesaid directions, the

opposite party No.1 vide its order No.3401, dated
20.02.2024 has withdrawn its earlier Department
Order No.10489, dated 15.05.2023. While
withdrawing the earlier order dated 15.05.2023, it
was observed by the Opp. Party No.1 that the
recommendation to grant preferential treatment to
the Petitioners holding Diploma in Agro Polytechnic
course does not merit any consideration in view of
no differential skill set acquired by them pursuant
to completion of Diploma course. ***

7. That, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of

this Hon‟ble Court, the issue was examined by the
Committee and the OSD-cum-Addl. Secretary to
Govt. who is the Member/Convenor of the said
Committee has submitted a report vide Letter
No.2211, dated 01.02.2024, wherein it has been
mentioned that as per the Odisha Sub-
Ordinate Soil Conservation Service (Method of
Recruitment and Conditions of Service of

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 32 of 83

 persons appointed to different Group-C & D
posts) issued by the Opp. Party No.1 vide
Resolution No.11804, dated 27.07.2015, the
essential qualification prescribed for Soil
Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW) is +2
Science or +2 Vocational Course in Agriculture
related subjects i.e. Crop Production/Horticulture/
Repair & Maintenance of Power Driven Farm
machinery (PDFM) from any of the recognized
Board/Council or Institution. ***

8. That, since the entry qualification for the Agro-

Polytechnic Diploma Programme is +2 Science and
the persons holding Diploma Agro-Polytechnic
course are having +2 Science qualification, they
are eligible for the post of Soil Conservation
Extension Worker (SCEW) and they can take part
in the recruitment process for such posts like other
+2 Science candidates. It is stated that the
Petitioners have admitted the same at Paragraph
No.3 of the Writ Application. The Petitioners are
claiming preferential treatment to the post of
SCEW without giving any justifiable cause.

9. That, in the instant case, it is humbly submitted

that any preferential treatment in case of higher
qualification/higher qualified candidates would
lead to the situation where the importance of the
written examination for the post of SCEW will be
substantially diluted and the merit of the
candidates will be compromised.

10. It is submitted that the plea of the Petitioners to

grant them preferential treatment to the post of
SCEW is contrary to the well settled principles of

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 33 of 83

 law that the fixation of eligibility conditions
to a public cost is lies in the exclusive
domain of the appointee/employer and
judicial review is not permissible in matters
of fixing eligibility criteria. The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs.
Pusparani, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, has held
that the prescription of minimum eligibility
qualification is in realm of the employer and
the Courts have a limited judicial review in
fixation of eligibility condition.

11. That, the Petitioners have failed to make out any

case for arbitrariness. The Petitioners have also
failed to show cause as to how they have
acquired a special skill set required for the
post of SCEW in comparison to other degrees
which has been listed out for the eligibility
criteria. The Petitioners by acquiring Diploma
in Agro Polytechnic do not constitute a
separate class which will warrant any
preferential treatment in public recruitment
given by the State Govt. In the event, the plea of
the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition is
accepted by this Hon‟ble Court, the same will be
amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.”

5.1. Refuting the contention of the petitioners that the

Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 could not have been
published before consideration of the Committee with
respect to employment opportunities of the Diploma
holders of Agriculture Science and Horticulture

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 34 of 83

 Science, as given impression to this Court which is
reflected in the Order dated 20.07.2023, Sri Shantanu
Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted
that in order to consider the grievance of the
Petitioners holding the qualification of Agro-
Polytechnic passed out applicants, the opposite party
No.1 had constituted Committee vide Order No. 10479
dated 15.03.2023 to go through the procedure adopted
in the other States, but said order has been withdrawn
by a decision of the opposite party No.1. The Order of
withdrawal stands thus:

““Government of Odisha
Department of Agriculture & Farmers‟ Empowerment
ORDER
No.DAFE-RESH-MISC-0037-2023/3401/A&FE,
Date 20.02.2024

A Committee was constituted vide this Department

Order No.10489, dated 15.05.2023 to examine the
grievance of the Agro-Polytechnic pass-out
students for appointment in the posts of VAW,
HEW, SCEW, etc.

After careful consideration, it is found that the any

recommendation by the Committee would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This Department Order No.10489 dated

15.05.2023 is hereby withdrawn.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 35 of 83

 By order of the Principal Secretary,
Sd/-
Under Secretary to Government.”

5.2. It is further submitted that the Petitioners having +2

Science qualification are eligible to apply and
participate in the recruitment process for the post of
SCEW against the total vacant posts of 245. The
demand for granting preference to the petitioners to
the post of SCEW is not supported by any legal right.
No candidate can demand for according preference for
selection to particular post. Therefore, he submitted
that the claim of the petitioners has been addressed to
appropriately by the State Government.

6. Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate appearing for the

Odisha Staff Selection Commission (opposite party
No.4), referred to following paragraphs in the counter
affidavit filed on its behalf:

“3. That the aforesaid writ application has been filed

challenging the Advertisement dt.13.6.2023 (Ann-
12) issued by this OP No-4 (OSSC) for “Combined
Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-
“C” Specialist posts/services under various
Departments, Govt. of Odisha”. The present case
is regarding recruitment to the 245 numbers of
posts of Soil Conservation Extension Worker
(SCEW), Group-“C” only.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 36 of 83

 4. That this Hon‟ble Court while issuing notice in the
aforesaid matter has been pleased to pass the
following interim Order dated 20.7.2023:

“I.A. No.10811 of 2023

11. Heard.

12. Issue notice as above.

13. As an interim measure, it is directed that the

Opposite Party No.4 is at liberty that the
selection process shall continue pursuant to
Annexure-12 Advertisement, however, 75
posts in the category of Soil Conservation
Extension Worker (SCEW) shall not be filled
up till the next date.

14. Further keeping in view the urgency of the

matter, a committee constitute pursuant to
order under Annexure-11 as directed to
examine the issue and submit its report
within a period of four weeks from the date of
communication of this order by the Additional
Secretary to Government, Department of
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted

on proper application.”

5. That it may be noted here that on the basis of the

Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) OR Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Group-B/Group-C
Specialists Posts/Services Rules, 2022 different
HODs and Departments of Government such as
Directorate of Textiles, Directorate of Town
Planning, Water Resources Department and
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 37 of 83
 Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Development Department have submitted
requisitions in the year 2023 for conduct of
recruitment against the vacancies in the posts of
Weaving Supervisor (03 vacancies), Technical
Assistant (19 vacancies), Amin (12 vacancies
under Directorate Town Planning), Amin (75
vacancies under Water Resources Department)
and Soil Conservation Extension Worker (245
vacancies).

6. That on the basis of the requisitions received,

this opposite party No.4 (OSSC) published an
advertisement bearing No.2273/OSSC
dt.13.06.2023 for recruitment to the post of
Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) OR
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for
Group-B/ Group-C Specialists Posts/Services
under various Department, Government of
Odisha in which Soil Conservation Extension
Worker (SCEW) is a part of the recruitment.”

6.1. Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate, thus, submitted

that the Director, Soil Conservation and Watershed
Development was requested vide Letter No. 446/OSSC
dated 31.01.2024 to furnish the detail break up of
category-wise vacancies including special category
vacancies of 75 posts which shall not be filled up as
per the aforesaid Interim Order dated 20.07.2023 of
this Court. But the Director, Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development in their Letter No.
1281/SC&WD, dated 06.02.2024 expressed that their

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 38 of 83

 Office is not aware of the categories of 75 candidates
who filed WP(C) No.22679 of 2023 in respect of whom
they are unable to provide the category-wise break up.
Thus, the OSSC is not in a position to know about
vacancies which have not been filled up, as a result of
which the processing of results of these posts has not
been finalised.

7. Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate representing

intervener-petitioners would submit that the
Interveners have cleared the Preliminary Examination,
the Main Written Examination and have also
participated in the Certificate Verification on being
provisionally admitted/selected.

7.1. With vehemence she could urge that the requisite

qualification for the posts of SCEW (Group-C) was
specified in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 to the
effect that the candidates possessing “+2 Science or +2
Vocational Course in Agriculture related subject, i.e.,
Crop Production (CP)/Horticulture/Repair and
Maintenance of Power Driven Farm Machinery (PDFM)
from any of the recognized Board/Council or
institution” can only apply. Accordingly the intervener-
petitioner(s) being qualified applied online for the said
post and remained in the selection process.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 39 of 83

7.2. It is further asserted by Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned
Advocate that in terms of the aforesaid Advertisement,
the appointments for the Combined Higher Secondary
(10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for
Group-„B‟ and Group-„C‟ Specialist Posts or Services
under various Departments is guided by “the
Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts or Services Rules, 2022” (for convenience
referred to as “Combined Rules, 2022”), which is
promulgated in exercise of powers conferred on the
State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. It has been contended that
Schedule-I appended to said Rules in Serial No.4
related to “Soil Conservation Extension Worker under
the Directorate of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Development” it has been clearly stated that “There
are no recruitment rules for the post. The syllabus and
the pattern of the examination have not been
prescribed. Hence, Odisha Staff Selection Commission
shall decide the syllabus and pattern of examination
in consultation with the concerned Departments or
HoDs by invoking the Rule 13 of Odisha Staff Selection
Commission Rules, 1993 and its subsequent
amendments till date”.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 40 of 83

7.3. Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned counsel for the intervener-
petitioners with well-researched precedent Dr. R.K.
Goyal Vrs. State of U.P., (1996) 11 SCC 658, to counter
viewpoint of Sri Kalpataru Panigrahi, learned counsel
for the petitioners, reinforced her stance that the
OSSC has prescribed the syllabus and the pattern of
examination in consultation with the concerned
Departments or HoDs.

7.4. Suavely presenting the case of intervenors, Ms.

Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate effectively articulates
the arguments in favour of the opposite parties‟
position that the Courts cannot direct the Government
to have a particular method of recruitment or fixing
the eligibility criteria in relevance to the averment in
the present writ application that the Committee
established vide Order dated 15.05.2023 had taken no
steps towards allowing or recommending the
candidates having Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic to
participate for the post of SCEW, and the concerned
Departments or HoDs also have not made any attempt
to include Diploma in Polytechnic to be a part of
curriculum for the post of SCEW.

7.5. Amplifying her argument, she would contend that as is

manifest from the counter affidavit of the opposite
party Nos.1 and 2 it is explicit that the Committee

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 41 of 83

 formed by Order dated 15.05.2023 has been
withdrawn by virtue of Order dated 22.02.2024.
Therefore, she objects to the prayer made by the
petitioners in I.A. No.6602 of 2024, wherein it has
been prayed for grant of permission to amend the writ
petition to question such withdrawal of the Committee.
She has proceeded to impress upon this Court that
pursuant to Order dated 20.07.2023 passed in the I.A.
No.10811 of 2023 as the opposite parties have been
allowed to continue with the process of recruitment in
connection with the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023,
with respect to SCEW, even if such process being
concluded by the opposite party No.4, the posts are
not filled up in obedience to said interim order and
pendency of the writ petition. Allowing the amendment
would tantamount to change of the nature and the
character of the writ petition at this belated stage. It
would prejudice the selected candidates who are
waiting for issue of appointment letters. Hence, Ms.
Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the
intervener-applicants strenuously urged to dismiss the
writ petition.

Analysis, discussions and consideration of contentions

and submissions:

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 42 of 83

8. Taking first the question whether it is prudent to allow
amendment application in I.A. No.6602 of 2024, on
the available pleadings and taking note of submissions
it is quite clear that the Government of Odisha after
forming Committee to examine the grievance of the
petitioners to include Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic
Course relating to Agriculture Science and
Horticulture Science for the post of SCEW and give
preference in selection for such job, the same was
withdrawn. This being policy decision of the
Government of Odisha, there is little scope for the writ
Court to intervene. Furthermore, this Court while
entertaining the writ petition vide Order dated
20.07.2023 clarified that the recruitment process
would continue, but posts in the category SCEW
would not be filled up. It is made ex facie clear by the
opposite party No.4-OSSC in its counter affidavit that
“all steps as per the requisition and the instruction
given by the State Government with respect to
recruitment to the 245 numbers of posts of Soil
Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW), Group-C”. It
is also sought to be clarified by answering opposite
party No.4 that “since this is a combined recruitment,
the candidates having eligibility for more than one
post are asked to exercise their preference/choice for
the post”. To illustrate, the opposite party No.4 has

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 43 of 83

 made valiant attempt to persuade this Court that
several candidates who opted for the post of SCEW,
also applied for the post of Amin, as they possess +2
Science qualification which is common eligibility
criteria for both the categories of posts. As a
consequence thereof, the results of both the categories
of posts are required to be published simultaneously.
It is submitted by Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate
for the Odisha Staff Selection Commission that since
this Court in the interim order has restrained not to
fill up the post of SCEW, the post of Amin also could
not be filled up. It is asserted by the counsel for the
opposite parties that the Preliminary Examination was
conducted on 17.12.2023 and its results have been
declared vide Notification No.77(C)/ OSSC,
13.02.2024, Notification No.79(C)/OSSC, dated
15.02.2024 and Notification No.81(C)/OSSC, dated
16.02.2024. The main written examination has also
been conducted and its results have already been
published vide Notification No.95(C)/OSSC, dated
06.04.2024 and Notification No.97(C)/OSSC, dated
08.04.2024. As has been impressed upon this Court
by the counsel for the intervener-applicants, Ms.
Agnisikha Ray, that the candidates being provisionally
selected have already participated in the process of
Certificate Verification. Therefore, this Court is of the

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 44 of 83

 considered view that allowing the amendment
application at this juncture would clog the recruitment
process and such a course would further protract the
matter which would lead to put the future of large
numbers of selected candidates in tenterhook and
restrain the Government from filling up large number
of vacancies in the post of SCEW. Hence, this Court
declines to allow the prayer of the petitioners to amend
the writ petition by incorporating challenge made to
Order dated 20.02.2024 of the Department of
Agriculture and Farmers‟ Empowerment withdrawing
the Order dated 15.05.2023 constituting Committee,
which is an independent cause of action.

9. Coming to the main issue whether the petitioners

holders of Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic qualification
after having +2 Science qualification can be allowed
employment opportunity by directing the opposite
party No.1 to grant them preference, it can only be
stated that it is the domain of the employer for
deciding the eligibility criteria for a particular
job/post.

9.1. It may be apt to have reference to following

observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in
Dr. R.K. Goyal Vrs. State of U.P., (1996) Supp.9 SCR
543 = (1996) 11 SCC 658, as relied on by Ms.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 45 of 83

 Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate for the intervener-
applicants:

“*** We find no substance in this contention because

even the regulations framed by the Medical Council
with respect to the qualifications recommended for
appointment as teachers in medical colleges are only
directory in nature as held by this Court in Dr. Ganga
Prasad Venna and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.,
reported in (1995) Supp.1 SCC 192. It is really within
the domain of the State Government to prescribed
qualifications for appointment to various posts in
State Services. Though recruitment to the State
medical services falls within the purview of the State
Government, they are expected to comply with the
regulations made by the Council in order to maintain
high standard of medical education as held by this
Court in Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar
& Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 401 and Government
of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Etc. Vrs. Dr. R. Murali
Babu Rao & Anr. Etc., reported in (1988) 3 SCR 173.
Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act
enable the Council to prescribe by making
regulations minimum standards of medical
education required for granting recognised
medical qualifications by Universities or medical
institutions in India and that would include
prescribed minimum qualifications for
appointment as teachers of medical education. As
State Governments are thus expected to comply with
the recommendations made by the Medical Council from
time to time and if the State Governments comply with
such recommendations irrespective of whether they are
approved by the Central Government or not, it cannot be
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 46 of 83
 said that in doing so they have acted arbitrarily or
illegally.”

9.2. What should be qualification for a particular job

requirement has been discussed in Post Graduate
Institute Vrs. J.B. Dilawari, 1988 Supp SCC 355 as
follows:

“5. The membership of the Institute Body has in the

meantime undergone a considerable change.
Similarly the relevant statutory Boards and
Committees of the Institute are by now being
manned by new blood in different degrees. What
exactly should be the appropriate
qualification for the Professor of the super
speciality in Paediatric Gastroenterology is a
matter for the expert body to decide and the
court should be slow to impose its opinion. ***

6. Respondent 1‟s contentions which prevailed with

the High Court are that the creation of the post
was not in accordance with law, the qualifications
prescribed for the Professor in the superspeciality
were not appropriate and the entire action
beginning from creation of the post to selection of
Dr Saroj Mehta is vitiated by mala fides.

7. With the finding recorded above, the first

contention is negatived. Next comes the
question as to whether the prescription of the
qualifications for the post of Professor was
appropriate. Dr Dilawari has taken the stand
that the qualifications were tailored to ensure Dr
Saroj Mehta‟s selection and though M.D. in

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 47 of 83

 Paediatrics should not be the qualification for the
post of Professor in the superspeciality, the
Institute accepted it. The High Court accepted the
allegation. We do not intend to pronounce any
view on settling the qualifications as we propose
to ask the Institute and its authorities to refix the
same.

8. Specialisation is the order of the day. About half a

century back, a general medical practitioner was
in a position to attend to all human ailments in
accordance with the then known methods of
treatment. Today for the purpose of medical
attention the human body has been divided
into several parts and expertise with regard
to these has so developed that specialisation
has become the order of the day. Though the
court, it is stated, is the expert of experts, it
is proper to take note of its limitations.
Realization of this situation has led to a
series of pronouncements where this Court
has reiterated the position that matters
involving expertise should be left to be
handled by expert bodies.”

9.3. Following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of Puneet Sharma Vrs. Himachal
Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (2021) 4 SCR 351
may be apposite for reference:

“26. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz

Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 = (2018) 14 SCR 1082
the post in question was “Technician-III” in the
Power Development Department in the State of
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 48 of 83
 Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation
with respect to qualification was “Matric with ITI
in the relevant trade.” The appellants held
diploma in Electrical Engineering and were
included in the list of disqualified
candidates. This resulted in litigation which
ultimately culminated in the judgment of this
court. This Court held in its judgment14:

„Under the above provisions as well as in the

advertisement which was issued by the Board,
every candidate must possess the prescribed
academic/professional/technical qualification and
must fulfil all other eligibility conditions. The
prescribed qualifications for the post of Technician-
III in the Power Development Department is a
Matric with ITI in the relevant trade. The Board
at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact
that in some districts, the interviews had
been conducted for candidates with a
Diploma in Electrical Engineering while in
other districts candidates with a Diploma
had not been considered to be eligible for the
post of Technician-III. Moreover, candidates
with an ITI in diverse trades had also been
interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its
meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade,
namely, the Electrical trade is the prescribed
qualification specified in the advertisement.‟

27. Thereafter, the Court discussed the previous

rulings in P.M. Latha & Anr. Vrs. State of Kerala &
Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 = (2003) 2 SCR 653; Jyoti
KK Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010)
15 SCC 596; and State of Punjab Vrs. Anita,
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 49 of 83
 (2015) 2 SCC 170 = (2014) 14 SCR 819, then
concluded that the candidature of the
diploma holders was correctly rejected and
held as follows:

„26. We are in respectful agreement with the

interpretation which has been placed on the
judgment in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 in
the subsequent decision in State of Punjab
Vrs. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170. The decision in
Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 turned on
the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such
a rule, it would not be permissible to
draw an inference that a higher
qualification necessarily presupposes
the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of
qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the
qualifications as a condition of
eligibility. It is no part of the role or
function of judicial review to expand
upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be
determined in exercise of the power of
judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for
the State, as the recruiting authority, to
determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 50 of 83

 Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15
SCC 596 664] turned on a specific statutory
rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification could presuppose the acquisition
of a lower qualification. The absence of
such a rule in the present case makes a
crucial difference to the ultimate
outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High
Court was justified in reversing the judgment
[Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. State of J&K,
2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned
Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion
that the appellants did not meet the
prescribed qualifications. We find no error in
the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No.135 of 2017,
decided on 12.10.2017 (J&K)] of the Division
Bench.

27. While prescribing the qualifications for a

post, the State, as employer, may
legitimately bear in mind several features
including the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite for the efficient discharge of duties,
the functionality of a qualification and the
content of the course of studies which leads
up to the acquisition of a qualification. The
State is entrusted with the authority to
assess the needs of its public services.
Exigencies of administration, it is trite
law, fall within the domain of

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 51 of 83

 administrative decision-making. The
State as a public employer may well
take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job
opportunities across the societal
structure. All these are essentially
matters of policy. Judicial review must
tread warily. That is why the decision in
Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 must be
understood in the context of a specific
statutory rule under which the holding
of a higher qualification which
presupposes the acquisition of a lower
qualification was considered to be
sufficient for the post. It was in the
context of specific rule that the decision in
Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 turned.‟

28. It would be also useful to notice a later judgment

of this court, in Chief Manager, Punjab National
Bank and Another Vrs. Anit Kumar Das, 2020
SCC OnLine SC 897 where the issue was,
whether for the post of peon in the appellant
Bank, a degree holder (graduate) could be
appointed, given the conscious decision of
the employer, that only those who held 10+2
pass qualifications would be considered and
those with graduation qualification could not
be considered. This court held that the
appointment of the respondent, who was a
graduate, after he suppressed the fact that he
held a degree, and did not disclose it, was

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 52 of 83

 unsupportable. In this context, it was observed
that as to what qualifications are applicable
to what class of posts, is a matter of
discretion to be exercised by the employer,
which the Courts would be slow to interdict.
This decision too supports the conclusions in the
present case, since the employer, HPSEB asserts
that it considers degree holders eligible for
appointment to the post of JE.

29. In the present case, what is evident from the rules

is that direct recruitment to the post of JEs in
HPSEB is to the extent of 72%. Undoubtedly,
eligibility is amongst those who passed in
matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent
qualification. However, this Court is of the
opinion that the diploma holders’ contention
that the minimum qualification is
matriculation and that the technical
qualification is diploma is incorrect. The
minimum qualification for the post cannot be
deemed to be only matriculation but rather
that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2
pass students, who are diploma holders
would be eligible. The term “with” in this
category has to be read as conjunctive.

30. As far as the merits of the main question i.e.

whether degree holders too can apply for the post
of JEs, a close examination of the rules shows that
a lion‟s share of the posts at the JE level is set
apart for direct recruitment. However, when it is at
the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer
which is a promotional post direct recruitment is
only to the extent of 36%. Of the balance 64%,
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 53 of 83
 various sub-quotas have been stipulated for feeder
cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior
Engineers. For a long time, even on the date of the
advertisement, two distinct quotas (of 5%) had
been set apart for promotion of Junior Engineers
holding degree qualifications in the concerned
subject.

31. This Court is conscious that the issue in question

is whether the minimum qualification of a diploma
in electrical or electronic engineering or other
prescribed qualifications includes a degree in that
discipline. However, the rules have to be
considered as a whole. So viewed, the two sub-
quotas are:

(1) 5% enabling those diploma holders who

acquire degree qualifications during service
as Junior Engineers; and

(2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees

before joining as Junior Engineers;

32. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what

the rule making authority undoubtedly had in
mind was that degree holders too could compete
for the position of JEs as individuals holding
equivalent or higher qualifications. If such
interpretation were not given, there would be no
meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those
who were degree holders before joining as Junior
Engineers in terms of the recruitment rules as
existing.

***

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 54 of 83

 37. The considerations which weighed with this court
in the previous decisions, i.e., P.M. Latha & Anr.
Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 =
(2003) 2 SCR 653, Yogesh Kumar & Ors Vrs.
Government of NCT Delhi & Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 548
= (2003) 2 SCR 662, State of Punjab Vrs. Anita,
(2015) 2 SCC 170 = (2014) 14 SCR 819; were
quite different from the facts of this case. This
court‟s conclusions that the prescription of a
specific qualification, excluding what is generally
regarded as a higher qualification can apply to
certain categories of posts. Thus, in Latha and
Yogesh Kumar as well as Anita (supra) those
possessing degrees or post-graduation or
B.Ed. degrees, were not considered eligible
for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a
similar manner, for “Technician-III” or lower
post, the equivalent qualification for the post
of Junior Engineer, i.e., diploma holders were
deemed to have been excluded, in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad,
(2019) 2 SCC 404 = (2018) 14 SCR 1082. This
court is cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well
as Zahoor (supra) the stipulation in Jyoti (supra)
which enabled consideration of candidates with
higher qualifications was deemed to be a
distinguishing ground. No such stipulation
exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material
significance is the fact that the higher post of
Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior
Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional
quota. Amongst these individuals, those who held
degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers
are entitled for consideration in a separate and

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 55 of 83

 distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a
Junior Engineer continuously for a prescribed
period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it
only shows the intent of the rule makers not to
exclude degree holders from consideration for the
lower post of Junior Engineers.”

9.4. In Ankita Thakur Vrs. H.P. Staff Selection Commission,

(2023) 16 SCR 813 it is stated as follows:

“In light of the law above, since we find that there

exists no provision in the extant Rules or the
advertisement to treat any other qualification as higher
or equivalent to the one specified therein, the claim of
such candidates, who could not demonstrate that they
held the prescribed essential qualifications, is liable to
be rejected and has rightly been rejected by the High
Court as well. Issue No.(vi) is decided accordingly.”

9.5. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Vrs. Anit

Kumar Das, (2020) 9 SCR 925 it has been laid down as
follows:

“7. In the case of Yogesh Kumar Vrs. Government of

NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 = (2003) 2 SCR
662, it is observed and held by this Court that
recruitment to public service should be held
strictly in accordance with the terms of
advertisement and the recruitment rules, if
any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to
ineligible persons and deprives many others
who could have competed for the post.

***

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 56 of 83

 7.3 Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, it is for the employer to determine and
decide the relevancy and suitability of the
qualifications for any post and it is not for the
Courts to consider and assess. A greater
latitude is permitted by the Courts for the
employer to prescribe qualifications for any
post. There is a rationale behind it.
Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view
the need and interest of an Institution or an
Industry or an establishment as the case may
be. The Courts are not fit instruments to
assess expediency or advisability or utility of
such prescription of qualifications. However,
at the same time, the employer cannot act
arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications
for posts. In the present case, prescribing the
eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a
graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the
candidate must have passed 12th standard is
justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a
conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in
force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has
clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to
allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to
discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such
was not eligible as per the eligibility
criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the
advertisement.”

9.6. It may also need to be highlighted through the

following observation contained in Basic Education
Board Vrs. Upendra Rai, (2008) 2 SCR 707 Court is not

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 57 of 83

 competent to declare equivalence of qualification for
eligibility for a particular assignment:

“15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of

equivalence is an administrative decision which is
in the sole discretion of the concerned authority,
and the Court has nothing to do with such
matters. The matter of equivalence is decided
by experts appointed by the government, and
the Court does not have expertise in such
matters. Hence it should exercise judicial
restraint and not interfere in it.

***

19. A perusal of the NCTE Act [National Council for

Teacher Education Act, 1993] shows that this Act
was made to regulate the teachers training system
and the teachers training institutes in the country.
It may be mentioned that there are two types of
educational institutions—

(1) ordinary educational institutions like primary

schools, high schools, intermediate colleges
and universities and

(2) teachers‟ training institutes.

The NCTE Act only deals with the second category

of institutions viz. teachers‟ training institutes. It
has nothing to do with the ordinary educational
institutions referred to above. Hence, the
qualification for appointment as teacher in the
ordinary educational institutions like the primary
school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act,
and the essential qualifications are prescribed by
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 58 of 83
 the local Acts and Rules in each State. In U.P. the
essential qualification for appointment as a
primary school teacher in a Junior Basic School is
prescribed by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been
framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.
A person who does not have the qualification
mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules
cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant
Master or Assistant Mistress in a Junior
Basic School.”

9.7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan

Kumar Baral Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.1365 of
2022, vide Judgment dated 30.10.2024 held as follows:

“24. In view of the law discussed by the Supreme

Court in the aforesaid decisions1, it can be easily
deduced as under:

i. The State, as an employer, while prescribing

qualifications for a post may legitimately
bear in mind several features including—

(a) the nature of the job,

(b) the aptitudes requisite for the efficient

discharge of duties,

(c) the functionality of a qualification and

1 Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404; Jyoti
K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596; Puneet
Sharma and others Vrs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., AIR
2021 SC 2221; Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Vrs. Anit Kumar Das,
(2021) 12 SCC 80; Unnikrishnan CV Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
343.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 59 of 83
 (d) the content of the course of studies
which leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification;

ii. Further, the State is entrusted with the

authority to assess the needs of its public
services;

iii. The exigencies of administration fall within

the domain of administrative decision-
making. The State as a public employer may
well take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job opportunities
across the societal structure;

iv. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts

for the employer to prescribe qualifications
for any post as the qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the need and
interest of an institution or an industry or an
establishment as the case may be;

v. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess

expediency or advisability or utility of such
prescription of qualifications.

25. In such view of the matter, the qualification

prescribed under Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 2013, as
the minimum educational qualification for
appointment to the post of JFTA does not require
interference by this Court exercising writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the petitioners have not been able to
demonstrate that the said prescription is in
violation of any constitutional or legal provision.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 60 of 83

 26. This writ application has no merit and is
dismissed accordingly.”

9.8. In Commr., Corpn. of Madras Vrs. Madras Corpn.

Teachers‟ Mandram, (1997) 1 SCC 253 it has been laid
down as:

“It is a well-settled legal position that it is the legal or

executive policy of the Government to create a post or to
prescribe the qualifications for the post. The Court or
Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The
impugned direction, therefore, is clearly illegal.”

9.9. In Ashish Kumar Vrs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine

Ori 4088 it has been observed that,

“24. The Petitioners also placed reliance on the decision

of Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vrs. Prasana
Kumar Sahoo, AIR 2007 SC 2588 to the effect that
even a policy decision of the State would be
amenable to judicial review if they were
contrary to the recruitment rules. Reliance
was also placed on the decision dated 31st July
2009, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.4977 of 2009 (Ajaya Kumar Das Vrs. State of
Odisha)2 which is to the same effect.

2 Ajaya Kumar Das Vrs. State of Odisha, (2009) 12 SCR 219 wherein it has
been held,
“That Orissa Service Code has been framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India is not in dispute. It is well settled that Statutory
Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended
only by a Rule or Notification duly made under Article 309 and not
otherwise. Whatever be the efficacy of the Executive Orders or Circulars or
Instructions, Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive
Orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace the Statutory Rules.
The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the
administrative Instructions or Circulars.”
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 61 of 83
 25. In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that
the clarification issued by the OFB3 on 12th
October 2018 is inconsistent to SRO 145 and calls
for interference. On the other hand, the decision
dated 14th September 2012 of the Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No.6468 of 2012 (State of
Gujarat Vrs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari)4 appears to
be relevant in the context. In para 7 of the said
judgment, it was held as under:

„7. The appointing authority is competent

to fix a higher score for selection, than
the one required to be attained for mere
eligibility, but by way of its natural
corollary, it cannot be taken to mean
that eligibility/norms fixed by the
statute or rules can be relaxed for this
purpose to the extent that, the same
may be lower than the ones fixed by the
statute. In a particular case, where it is so
required, relaxation of even educational
qualification(s) may be permissible, provided
that the rules empower the authority to relax
such eligibility in general, or with regard to
an individual case or class of cases of undue
hardship. However, the said power should
be exercised for justifiable reasons and it
must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to
favour an individual. The power to relax the
recruitment rules or any other rule made by
the State Government/Authority is conferred
upon the Government/Authority to meet any

3 Ordnance Factory Board.

4 State of Gujarat Vrs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 7 SCR 1072.
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 62 of 83
 emergent situation where injustice might
have been caused or, is likely to be caused to
any person or class of persons or, where the
working of the said rules might have become
impossible. (Vide: State of Haryana Vrs.
Subhash Chandra Marwah & Ors., AIR 1973
SC 2216; J.C. Yadav Vrs. State of Haryana,
AIR 1990 SC 857; and Ashok Kumar Uppal
& Ors. Vrs. State of J & K & Ors., AIR 1998
SC 2812).”

9.10. In Bhabendra Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC

OnLine Ori 720, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
observed as follows:

“***

84. So far as the second prayer, it has been

contended by them that the NCTE notification
provides provision to provide opportunity to such
candidates having graduation and 2-years
diploma in elementary education by whatever
name known, but in complete violation of the same
this category of candidates have been deprived
from consideration of their candidature.

***

91. It is not in dispute that the students require

uniform standard of teaching in all the faculties
i.e. arts, science or commerce. Admittedly for
Classes-I to V the subject having science
background is less excepting the reading of
mathematic, etc., but now we are living in the era

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 63 of 83

 where even the mathematics is being taught from
Class-I in ICSE course or in the CBSE course.

92. Here, in the instant case, the State Government is

concerned with the education to be imparted to
such category of candidates through its own
Board known as Secondary Board having 10+2
syllabus side by side the courses being run by
Central Board of Secondary Education (in short
CBSE) Indian Certificate of Secondary Education
(in short ICSE) are also going on, hence the
requirement of the day is that the children
studying in the State Secondary Board is to
compete with the students studying with CBSE
course or ICSE course.

93. In this predicament it is the State

Government who is the best to judge the
persons to be inducted in the service of
teachers to strengthen the foundation of the
children of Category-I which imparts studies
to class-I to class-V candidates. If this fact
would be taken into consideration, as has been
argued orally by the learned Advocate General,
the justification shown by learned Advocate
General that since the quota of fixing vacancy is
not available in the NCTE notification, as such the
State Government is the best judge to earmark the
vacancies to be filled up from amongst the science
or Arts or Commerce category, according to him,
keeping the larger interest of the children which is
the sole aim of enacting the RTE Act, 2009, the
State has taken a conscious decision to earmark
60% of vacancies to be filled up from Science

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 64 of 83

 background teacher to impart teaching from Class-
I to Class-V.

94. In that view of the matter, according to the

considered view of this court, the reasoning given
by the learned Advocate General seems to be just
and proper and it does not seem to suffer from the
vice of malice or the arbitrariness.

95. Since it has not been provided under the

statute earmarking the quota of Science or
Arts or Commerce background, rather it
depends upon the need and exigency, the
Government in future can also take decision
of reducing this percentage of quota as has
been submitted by learned Advocate General.
This also led this Court to come to the conclusion
that the State action cannot be said to be
unreasonable.

96. Overall providing any qualification fixing

any quota of engagement of a category of
employee since is the policy decision of the
State Government, unless arbitrary, the scope
of judicial review is very limited that too
when no specific criteria has been fixed in
this regard under the statute.

97. In that view of the matter, according to the

conscious view of this Court, showing
interference in any manner in this regard by
this Court sitting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India will only lead to
interference with the scope of the State
Government in making out the policy

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 65 of 83

 decision which is for the larger interest of
the pupil.

98. In that view of the matter, this Court

restrains itself to exercise the power of
judicial review as has been prayed by the
petitioners, accordingly this prayer of the
petitioners is declined to be interfered with.

99. So far as the second prayer regarding omission of

consideration of candidature of B.A./B.Sc. and 2-
years Diploma in Elementary Education by
whatever name known, in the State of Odisha it is
known as certification on training is concerned,
this Court is not in agreement with the reasoning
given by the State through the learned Advocate
General rather reiterating the view which has
been taken by this Court while deciding the
issue raised in the writ petitions referred as
Category-II above, is of the considered view
that the State is supposed to act strictly in
pursuance to the legislation.”

9.11. In Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vrs.

Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 7 SCR 94, it is held
as follows:

“10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a

post are for the employer to decide. The employer
may prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications including any grant of preference. It
is the employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess according
to the needs of the employer and the nature of
work. The Court cannot lay down the
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 66 of 83
 conditions of eligibility, much less, can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being at par with the essential
eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the
language of the advertisement and the rules are
clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the
same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules
or law, the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority, after appropriate
orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In
no case, can the Court, in the garb of judicial
review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority
to decide what is best for the employer and
interpret the conditions of the advertisement
contrary to the plain language of the same.

***

15. The view taken by the Tribunal finds approval in

Secretary (Health), Department of Health & F.W.
and Another Vrs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others, (1996)
6 SCC 282, observing as follows:

„7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was

published calling for applications from the
candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it
was clearly stipulated that the minimum
qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also
stipulated that preference should be given for
higher dental qualification. There is also no
dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification
than the minimum qualification required for

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 67 of 83

 the post and Respondent 1 was having that
degree. The question then arises is whether
a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is
entitled to be selected and appointed as of
right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement
conferring preference for higher qualification?
The answer to the aforesaid question must
be in the negative. When an advertisement
stipulates a particular qualification as
the minimum qualification for the post
and further stipulates that preference
should be given for higher qualification,
the only meaning it conveys is that some
additional weightage has to be given to
the higher qualified candidates. But by
no stretch of imagination it can be
construed to mean that a higher
qualified person automatically is
entitled to be selected and appointed. ***
In this view of the matter, the High Court in
our considered opinion was wholly in error in
holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like
Respondent 1 was entitled to be selected
and appointed when the Government
indicated in the advertisement that higher
qualification person would get some
preference. The said conclusion of the High
Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and
must be reversed.‟

***”

9.12. With the above conspectus of legal position as

enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India as

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 68 of 83

 well as this Court, and having had the opportunity to
have glance at “the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2)
Level or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for
Specialist Posts or Services Rules, 2022”, which came
into force with effect from 09.01.2023 vide General
Administration and Public Grievance Department
Notification No.742-GAD-FE-OSSC-0012/2022/Gen,
dated 07.01.2023, published in Odisha Gazette,
Extraordinary No.87, dated 09.01.2023, it is in Rule 3
ibid., which deals with “Direct Recruitment”, provided
that “Appointment to Services or Posts mentioned in
column (2) of the Schedule-I which are required to be
filled up by direct recruitment as per the provisions
under the relevant recruitment Rules or Resolutions
as mentioned in column (3) thereof, shall
notwithstanding anything contrary in such Rules or
Regulations, be made in order of merit from out of the
candidates recommended by the Commission:
provided that the Government may include any Service
or Posts in Schedule-I for regulating direct recruitment
to that Service or Posts or exclude any Service or Posts
from the Schedule-I by notification in the Odisha
Gazette”.

9.13. Whereas Rule 4 of said Rules, 2022 prescribes

“Eligibility criteria for appointment”, Rule 5 specifies
“Holding of Examination”. Further, Rule 8 thereof
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 69 of 83
 provides for “Overriding effect” by laying down that
“These Rules shall have overriding effect on all the
recruitment Rules or Resolutions or executive
instructions or orders issued by the Administrative
Departments governing the method of recruitment as
mentioned in column (3) of Schedule-I”.

9.14. Schedule-I insofar as it relates to “SCEW”, following

fact appears:

Sl. Name of the Recruitment Rules or Resolution or

No. post/department Executive Instruction
* * *
(4) Soil Conservation There are no recruitment rules for the post.
Extension Worker The syllabus and the pattern of the
under the Directorate examination has not been prescribed. Hence,
of Soil Conservation Odisha Staff Selection Commission shall
and Watershed decide the syllabus and pattern of
Development examination in consultation with the
concerned Departments of HoDs by invoking
the Rule 13 of the OSSC Rules, 1993 and its
subsequent amendments till date.
* * *

9.15. Schedule-II appended to Rule 6 of said Rules, 2022

prescribes syllabus of Preliminary Written
Examination and Main Written Examination which
includes “technical paper”. Syllabus for Technical
Paper for services inter alia SCEW would have to be
decided by the Commission in consultation with the
Appointing Authority or Cadre Controlling Authority. It
also specifies that “if more than one Appointing
Authority are involved, syllabus will be decided by the
Commission in consultation with Cadre Controlling
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 70 of 83
 Authority. Commission may decide to have a common
Technical Paper for more than one services or posts.
Commission can update or revise the syllabus of
Technical Paper in consultation with the Appointing
Authority or Cadre Controlling Authority from time to
time.”

9.16. It is transpired from perusal of Advertisement dated

13.06.2023 (Annexure-12) that it is stipulated therein
at Clause (a) of Paragraph 1 that “Appointment shall
be guided by Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level
or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts/Services Rules, 2022”. Further scrutiny would
reveal that the applications are invited online through
the OSSC for recruitment to fill up vacancies in
different offices under the said Rules for various
departments of the Government of Odisha. Amongst
others, it is revealed that 245 numbers of vacant posts
in SCEW in Group-C category under the Directorate of
Soil Conservation and Watershed Development are
required to be filled up. Paragraph 3 of said
Advertisement specified in addition to general criteria
of eligibility, it published requisite educational
qualifications as eligibility for different posts. Under
the heading “Educational Qualification” in the said
Paragraph 3, in respect of SCEW, it required the
candidates to have “+2 Science or +2 Vocational
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 71 of 83
 Course in Agriculture related subject, i.e., Crop
Production (CP)/Horticulture/Repair and Maintenance
of Power Driven Farm Machinery (PDFM) from any of
the recognised Board/Council or Institution” as
“Essential Educational Qualification”. The opposite
party Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit made it
manifest that since the petitioners have +2 Science as
educational qualification besides having Diploma in
Agro-Polytechnic Course, they are not restrained from
participating in the Combined Higher Secondary
(10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for
Group-B and Group-C Specialist Posts/Services under
various Departments of Government of Odisha
(Annexure-12).

9.17. As it appears from the counter affidavit of the opposite

party No.4, the OSSC, on the basis of requisition
received it published Advertisement dated 13.06.2023
for recruitment to the post of “Combined Higher
Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment
Examination for Group-B/Group-C Specialists
Posts/Services under various Departments,
Government of Odisha” in which SCEW is one of the
posts for recruitment. It transpires from the counter
affidavit of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that, the
qualification required to acquire Diploma in Agro-
Polytechnic +2 Science background is essential. The

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 72 of 83

 candidates holding Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic Course
are, therefore, supposed to have +2 Science qualification.
Thus, they are eligible to apply for the post of SCEW and
thereby they are not prohibited or restricted to take part in
the recruitment process for such posts. Nevertheless, the
petitioners have claimed for preferential treatment to the
post of SCEW, which in the considered view of this Court
is unwarranted as the scope to tinker with the policy of the
Government based on expert opinion is feeble.

9.18. As the OSSC has prepared syllabus in consonance with

the prescriptions contained in the Combined Higher
Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment
Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules,
2022, and completed the process of examination by
holding Preliminary Examination, Main Written
Examination and completed the process of verification
of certificates of the selected candidates in terms of
Advertisement dated 13.06.2023, at this stage there is
no point in keeping the issue of appointment letters on
hold. At the stage of hearing it has been submitted by
Sri Sanjib Swain, learned Advocate appearing for the
OSSC that the selection process qua posts advertised
in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 has been
concluded and letters are issued to the Government
recommending the names of the selected candidates.
Ms. Agnisikha Ray, learned Advocate for the

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 73 of 83

 intervener-petitioners affirmed that the selected
candidates having already appeared for certificate
verification, in view of propositions laid down in
Roshan Kumar Baral Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No.1365 of 2022, vide Judgment dated 30.10.2024, the
policy decision of the State Government does not
warrant to be brushed aside by this Court. This Court,
therefore, appreciating aforesaid submissions of the
counsel for the opposite parties and intervener-
petitioners, takes note of submission of Sri Shantanu
Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel that the
opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A. No.5187 of
2024 with a prayer to modify the interim order passed
on 20.07.2023. It is stated that because this Court
restrained to fill up 75 posts (petitioners herein) in the
category of SCEW, the opposite parties could not issue
appointment letters to the successful candidates in
order to fill up vacant posts as advertised.

9.19. Under the aforesaid premises, examining the real

issue, it appears the petitioners have come up before
this Court with the grievance reflected at paragraph 10
of the writ petition to the effect that,

“Though the State of Odisha has provided employment

opportunity for selection of successful candidates of
every academic curriculum, yet it is causing
discrimination in the matter of employment to the two-

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 74 of 83

 years Diploma in Agro- Polytechnic pass out candidates
by not providing any opportunity of employment either
in Group-C or in Group-B category of posts from the
Academic Session of the year 2012-13 till date. Further,
as the Advertisement vide Annexure-12 is passed
hastily during the period when the Committee members
are in session of the matter to take a decision, for
approval of the State Government, the same is illegal,
arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
constitution of India and is in respect liable to be
quashed, of the recruitment for the post of Soil
Conservation Extension Worker, Group-C.”

9.20. As has already been observed that in consonance with

the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts or Services Rules, 2022, the examination was
conducted and concluded by granting opportunity of
employment to the candidates including the
petitioners who are in possession of +2 qualification
with “Science” and the petitioners were not restrained/
restricted/prohibited from participating in the
“Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Group-B/Group-C
Specialists Posts/Services under various Departments,
Government of Odisha”, the contention of the
petitioners have no foundation to allege State action
unfair to bring it into the fold of vice of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. As such the claim of the
petitioners is rejected for failure miserably to establish
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 75 of 83
 discrimination. However, so far as preferential
treatment is concerned, it is the domain of the State
Government for consideration as a matter of policy.
Various jobs enumerated in the Advertisement dated
13.06.2023 reveals the fact that candidature for
different posts required different special educational
qualification. Therefore, seeking to challenge the
withdrawal of Order constituting Committee by the
petitioners (vide I.A. No.6602 of 2024) has no bearing
on the issue at hand, inasmuch as no challenge has
been laid by the petitioners with regard to power
conferred on the opposite parties by virtue of the
Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts or Services Rules, 2022, which is framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and “in
supersession of any Rules or Regulation or Orders or
Instructions issued”.

10. The aforesaid discussion now takes this Court

consider whether the petitioners can ventilate their
grievance before the authority concerned.

10.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for preferential

treatment is left to the decision to be taken by the
employer. It needs to be mentioned that Rule 9 of the

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 76 of 83

 Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts or Services Rules, 2022, spells out that,

“When it is considered by the Government, that it is

necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the
provisions of these rules in respect of any class or
category of persons”.

10.2. Regard may be had to Ashok Kumar Uppal Vrs. State of

Jammu and Kashmir, (1998) 1 SCR 164 wherein the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to
indicate the possibility of relaxation of rules framed by
the Government in the following terms:

“26. Power to relax the Recruitment Rules or any other

Rule made by the State Government, under Article
309 of the Constitution of which the corresponding
provision is contained in Section 124 of the
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is conferred
upon the Government to meet any emergent
situation where injustice might have been caused
or is likely to be caused to any individual
employee or class of employees or where the
working of the Rule might have become
impossible. Under service jurisprudence as
also the Administrative Law, such a power
has necessarily to be conceded to the
employer particularly the State Government
or the Central Government who have to deal
with the hundreds of employees working
under them in different departments
W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 77 of 83
 including the Central or the State
Secretariat.

27. In State of Maharashtra Vrs. Jagannath Achyut

Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 = (1989) 1SCR
947 = (1989) Supp.1 SCC 393, it was held as
under:

„The power to relax the conditions of the Rules to

avoid undue hardship in any case or class of
cases cannot now be gainsaid. It would be,
therefore; futile for the respondents to make any
grievance.‟

28. In JC. Yadav and others Vrs. State of Haryana

and others, (1990) 2 SCC 189, it was held as
under:

„The relaxation of the rules may be to the extent

the State Government may consider necessary for
dealing with a particular situation in a just and
equitable manner. The scope of Rule is wide
enough to confer power on the State Government
to relax the requirement of Rules in respect of an
individual or class of individuals to the extent it
may consider necessary for dealing with the case
in a just and equitable manner. The power of
relaxation is generally contained in the Rules
with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to
meet a particular situation. Many a time
strict application of service rules create a
situation where a particular individual or a
set of individuals may suffer undue hardship
and further there may be a situation where
requisite qualified persons may not be

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 78 of 83

 available for appointment to the service. In
such a situation the Government has power
to relax requirement of Rules. The State
Government may in exercise of its powers
issue a general order relaxing any particular
Rule with a view to avail the services of
requisite officers. The relaxation even if granted
in a general manner would ensure to the benefit of
individual officers.‟

29. This decision was followed in Sandeep Kumar

Sharma Vrs. State of Punjab and others, (1997) 10
SCC 298. In which Hon‟ble Punchhi, J. (as His
Lordship then was), observed as under:

„The power of relaxation even if generally included

in the Service Rules could either be for the purpose
of mitigating hardships or to meet special and
deserving situations. Such Rule must be
construed liberally, according to the learned
Judges. Of course arbitrary exercise of such
power must be guarded against. But a
narrow construction is likely to deny benefit
to the really deserving cases. We too are of the
view that the rule of relaxation must get a
pragmatic construction so as to achieve effective
implementation of a good policy of the
Government.‟

30. In view of the above, the Government can exercise

the power to relax the Rules in all those cases in
which hardship is caused in the implementation of
those Rules to meet a particular situation or where
injustice has been caused to either individual
employee or class of employees. Of course, this

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 79 of 83

 power cannot be exercised capriciously or
arbitrarily to give undue advantage or favour to an
individual employee.”

10.3. In the light of the above exposition of legal perspective

as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Rule 9
of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or
Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Specialist
Posts or Services Rules, 2022, may be invoked on the
petitioners, being reserved liberty to apprise the
appropriate Government/authority to establish their
claim for the relief sought for.

Conclusion:

11. Having considered the case of the petitioners in every

respect and aspect and also taking into account the
fact of conceded position that the petitioners having +2
Science qualification with Diploma in Agro-Polytechnic
Course are eligible to appear and compete with other
candidates in respect of post of “Soil Conservation
Extension Worker”, this Court finds no sufficient and
plausible ground or justiciable reason to countenance
the claim for preferential treatment inasmuch as the
examination is a “Combined Higher Secondary (10+2)
or Equivalent Recruitment Examination for Group-
B/Group-C Specialists Posts/Services under various
Departments, Government of Odisha”.

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 80 of 83

11.1. The eligibility criteria with respect to qualification of
candidates being specified in terms of Schedule-I and
Schedule-II appended to the Combined Higher
Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent Recruitment
Examination for Specialist Posts or Services Rules,
2022 for appointment to the post of Soil Conservation
Extension Worker are well within the domain of the
Odisha Staff Selection Commission/State Government
and in tune with the requirement of the opposite party
Nos.1 and 2 for such post. The employer is normally
considered to be the best judge to prescribe
qualification for a particular post/service or job
description. The appointing authority is primarily
responsible to select the syllabus and qualification for
a specified assignment. The need of specific
qualification for particular description of job is the
domain of the appointing authority. It is the Combined
Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or
Services Rules, 2022, framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and in supersession of any Rules
or Regulation or Orders or Instructions issued,
conferred the authority on the opposite parties
including the OSSC to prescribe qualifications for

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 81 of 83

 eligibility to the post of Soil Conservation Extension
Worker and manner thereof.

11.2. This Court, thus, cannot sit in the place of the

appointing authority to prescribe the conditions of
eligibility by resorting to power of judicial review and
provide such qualification or subrogate the eligibility
condition(s) in the Advertisement dated 13.06.2023
(Annexure-12). Nothing is cited by the petitioners to
demonstrate that the eligibility criteria or the
qualifications specified for the post “Soil Conservation
Extension Worker” is contrary to delineated authority
conferred under the Combined Rules, 2022. Such
question clearly falls outside the purview of judicial
review and in case of any doubt with respect to the
language of the advertisement, one has to fall back
upon the appointing authority to take a decision in
accordance with law but under no circumstances, the
Court exercising the powers of judicial review can
supplement or supplant the eligibility conditions
contained in the advertisement.

11.3. Having found that the conduct of Combined Higher

Secondary (10+2) or Equivalent Recruitment
Examination for Group-„B‟ & Group-„C‟ Specialist
Posts/Services under various Departments,
Government of Odisha being undertaken by the OSCC

W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 82 of 83

 in consonance with requirement of the Combined
Higher Secondary (10+2) Level or Equivalent
Recruitment Examination for Specialist Posts or
Services Rules, 2022, no infirmity is perceived. The
petitioners have not challenged the validity of said
Combined Rules, 2022 and the eligibility criteria
prescribed thereunder.

12. Ergo, finding no merit, in view of the above discussions

and reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
writ petition stand dismissed and the interim order
passed on 20.07.2023 and orders passed extending
said interim order from time to time are hereby
vacated. All interlocutory applications pending are
disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

JUDGE

Signature Not Verified High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Digitally Signed The 6th December, 2024//MRS/Laxmikant/Suchitra
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Dec-2024 13:38:06 W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2023 Page 83 of 83