Orissa High Court: While deciding writ petitions filed by reserved category candidates challenging recruitment to Assistant Professor (Super Speciality) posts under the Odisha Medical Education Service (‘OMES’) Cadre, a Single Judge Bench of Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., held that no illegality was committed in issuing the advertisement without reservation. The Court clarified that although Rule 6 read with Rule 3(a) of the Odisha Medical Education Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’) and Section 3 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies Act, 1975 (‘1975 Act’) mandate reservation for base level posts, such benefit does not extend to super speciality disciplines unless specifically provided by the State. Observing that merit must prevail at this level, the Court found the petitions unsustainable and dismissed them.
Background:
The case arose from the selection process initiated by the Odisha Public Service Commission (‘Commission’) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Speciality) pursuant to an advertisement. The writ petitions were filed challenging the advertisement on the ground that reservation had not been provided in terms of Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules. Consequently, the petitioners belonging to reserve categories argued that all 19 posts advertised were meant for Unreserved (‘UR’) candidates, thereby depriving them of participation.
It was further contended that since in certain disciplines such as Neurology and Gastroenterology more than one post was advertised, reservation should have been provided in view of Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules read with Section 3 of the 1975 Act. Petitioners also relied on similar advertisements issued by AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, and other Public Service Commissions where reservation was provided. They argued that the post of Assistant Professor being a base level post, reservation was mandatory.
On the other hand, the State contended that the recruitment being for super speciality posts, reservation was not applicable. It was submitted that the Government had issued a clarification on 21-06-2021 indicating that no reservation was applicable for recruitment to Assistant Professor in super speciality disciplines. The State maintained that merit alone counts at the super speciality level and therefore reservation would not be advisable.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the advertisement inter alia on the ground that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules read with Section 3 of the 1975 Act, since no reservation has been provided in respect of the discipline Neurology and Gastroenterology, the process of selection initiated in respect of those two disciplines is not sustainable in the eye of law.
The Court emphasised that Rule 6 of the Rules no doubt provides for reservation of vacancies for posts to be filled up in OMES Cadre, and further observed that as provided under Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules, the teaching post in the service cadre comprises of three posts with the post of Assistant Professor being the base level post in the said cadre. Therefore, the Court highlighted that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 6 read with Rule 3(a) of the 2021 Rules and Section 3 of the 1975 Act, necessary reservation should have been provided for reserve category candidates in the impugned advertisement.
The Court further observed that pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the post in other disciplines have already been filled up and none of the appointees are party to the writ petition and in absence of them, their selection and appointment cannot be interfered with.
The Court noted that since in terms of the decision in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, so followed in Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120, and Faculty Assn. of AIIMS v. Union of India, (2013) 11 SCC 246, no step has been taken by the State as to whether reservation can be followed against recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in Super Speciality, it is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the opposite parties while issuing the impugned advertisement.
Consequently, the Court held that it is not inclined to interfere with the recruitment process so undertaken by the Commission pursuant to the advertisement issued on 10-11-2021. The Court therefore dismissed both the writ petitions and vacated the interim order passed earlier.
[Nihar Ranjan Biswal v. State of Orissa, W.P. (C) No. 15074 of 2022, decided on 01-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: B. Routray, Sr. Advocate along with J. Biswal, Advocate, S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate along with S. Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: M.R. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate, P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with K.T. Mudali, Advocate, T. Patnaik, Advocate