Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 627 (ORI)

Suresh Ch. Pradhan v. High Court of Orissa

2003-10-29

A.K.PATNAIK

body2003
ORDER 29.10.2003 — This writ petition is filed by 25 petitioners, who intend to apply for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. Case of the writ petitioners inter alia is that the last examina¬tion for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II was held in 1999-2000 and thereafter more than three years have passed, but the State Government has not taken any steps for recruitment of candidates to fill up the existing vacancies in Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. As a result of such delay, there is serious frustration amongst the petitioners. The peti¬tioners have therefore prayed for a direction to the State Gov¬ernment to issue a notification for the examination for recruit¬ment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II immediately. The petitioners have also prayed for a tentative time frame to be fixed by the Court for completion of the entire selection pro¬cess. The petitioners have further prayed that some outside Universities may be short-listed for setting the question papers and evaluating the answer papers of the candidates, who will take the examination for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. 2. Mr. Palit, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the case of Amarjit Keshari Das v. State of Orissa and others (O.J.C. No.648 of 2001) and other connected cases this Court by its judgment dated 12.8.2002 has directed that some amendments be effected to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994. By such directions, the High Court has to get the question papers set and the examiners selected and the Orissa Public Service Commission is required to complete the procedural requirements like calling for applications, scrutinising them and actual holding the writ¬ten examinations. By the said judgment, this Court further di¬rected that those who are invited for the viva voce test on the basis of their written examination are to be examined by the Committee which is to consist of two sitting Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice and by the Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission or his nominee. But, these amendments have not been effected by the Government to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994. 3. But, these amendments have not been effected by the Government to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994. 3. Mr Sovesh Roy, learned Advocate General on the other hand on instruction submitted that the draft Orissa Judicial Service Rules have been framed pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India and others : (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 247 and the said draft Rules have been placed before the State Cabinet, but no final decision has been taken on the said draft Rules and it will take some time for the State Government to take a final decision on the draft Rules. 4. Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Orissa Public Service Commission on the other hand submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Keshari Das v. State of Orissa and others (O.J.C. No.648 of 2001 and other connected cases) has been challenged by the Orissa Public Service Commission before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. According to Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Commission, direc¬tions for amendment to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 could not be given at all by this Court. 5. A large number of vacancies as many as 101 in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II have taken place already and some more vacancies are likely to take place in the near future. Since the Government requires some more time to finalise the new draft Rules made pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India and others : (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 247, immediate recruitment to these 101 vacancies may not take place in accordance with the new draft Rules to be finalised by the Government. In the circum¬stances, recruitment has to be done as early as possible in accordance with the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994. So long as the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 are in force, the provisions of the said Rules have to be followed while making the recruitment to the Orissa Judicial service, Class II. The said 1994 Rules do not provide for setting of question papers and evaluation of answer papers by an university outside the State. So long as the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 are in force, the provisions of the said Rules have to be followed while making the recruitment to the Orissa Judicial service, Class II. The said 1994 Rules do not provide for setting of question papers and evaluation of answer papers by an university outside the State. Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of Mr Palit that in the recruitment examination to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II, outside Universities should be short-listed for setting of the question papers and evaluating the answer papers. 6. Coming now to the prayer of the petitioners for direct¬ing the State Government to issue notification for recruitment examination to the Orissa judicial service, Class-II immediately and for fixing a time-frame for completion of the entire process of selection, we are of the view that such a direction is called for because 101 vacancies have taken place in Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II and some more vacancies are going to take place in the near future. Unless immediate steps are taken for recruit¬ment to these vacancies, the functioning of the subordinate judiciary in the State of Orissa will be seriously affected. 7. Mr Palit, however, submitted that Rule 10 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 provides that in order to be eligible for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II, a candidate shall not be less than 21 years of age and over thirty-two years of age, and shall be an Advocate having practice at the Bar for at least three years. He pointed out that in the decision in All India Judges’ Association and others case (supra), the Su¬preme Court was of the view that in the light of experience gained, the need for an applicant to be an Advocate for atleast three years should be done away with. He further submitted that the last recruitment was held in the year 1999-2000 and no re¬cruitment has taken place for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, and in the meanwhile some of the intending candidates have crossed the maximum age limit of 32 years. He further submitted that the last recruitment was held in the year 1999-2000 and no re¬cruitment has taken place for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, and in the meanwhile some of the intending candidates have crossed the maximum age limit of 32 years. Mr Palit further submitted that unless these provisions of Rule 10 of the 1994 Rules are relaxed, candidates who do not have three years prac¬tice at the Bar and have crossed the maximum age of 32 years will not be eligible to take the recruitment examination to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II. 8. We find force in the submission of Mr Palit. We find that under Rule 30 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994, the Government in consultation with the High Court for the rea¬sons to be recorded in writing can relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons or posts. We accordingly direct that the Government will in exercise of their powers under Rule 30 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 relax the provisions of Rule 10 of the said Rules so that the intending candidates who have crossed the maximum age of 32 years on account of delay in holding the recruitment examina¬tion to the Orissa Judicial service, Class-II and the intending candidates who do not have three years practice at the Bar are eligible to take the recruitment examination. 9. We further direct that the State Government will deter¬mine the number of vacancies in Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II in consultation with the High Court and send the requisition to the Orissa Public Service Commission in accordance with Rule 6 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 and the Orissa Public Service Commission as far as practicable will complete the pro¬cess of selection and make the recommendations by 31st of March, 2004. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Let copies of this order be given to the learned Advocate General, Mr. B. Ray, learned counsel for Orissa Public Service Commission and also the Registrar (Administration) of the Court. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the Rules. Petition disposed of.