Orissa HC Sets Aside Odisha Legislative Assembly's Cancellation of Reporter Selection, Directs Appointment Within Four Weeks
The Orissa High Court held that the Odisha Legislative Assembly's July 2023 cancellation of a 2021 Reporter recruitment was contrary to a final coordinate Bench judgment and hit by res judicata, directing appointment letters within four weeks.
The Orissa High Court, sitting singly as Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra at Cuttack, has quashed Memo No. 4581(3)/L.A dated 21 July 2023, by which the Selection Board of the Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat cancelled the entire recruitment process for seven Reporter posts that had been advertised on 26 January 2021. The two petitioners — Sourava Rout, who had applied under the UR category, and Biswajyoti Behera, who applied under the SC category — had topped the select list published on 29 June 2021 but had been denied appointment for over two years. The court found that the cancellation contradicted findings already recorded by a coordinate Bench in a judgment that had attained finality, was hit by the principle of res judicata, and rested on a ground — non-availability of original documents — that the earlier court had itself examined and found insufficient. The Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to issue appointment letters within four weeks.
The Recruitment Process and the Petitioners' Position in the Select List
The Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat advertised seven Reporter posts on 26 January 2021. A Type Test was held on 7 March 2021, and candidates who cleared it were called for a Shorthand Skill Test (English and Odia) and a Viva Voce. Both petitioners cleared all stages. By Selection Notice No. 4641/LA dated 29 June 2021, Petitioner No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 at Serial No. 2 in the final select list.
The Examination Committee had recommended the petitioners' names to the Selection Board by 23 August 2021. However, the Selection Board meeting, scheduled for 4 October 2021 to approve the appointments, was postponed without any disclosed reason. This delay — which the petitioners argued was contrary to the Orissa Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (“the Rules, 1983”) — prompted them to approach the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021, seeking a direction for issuance of appointment orders.
The Earlier Coordinate Bench Judgment and Its Finality
Two writ petitions were taken up together by a coordinate Bench: W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021 filed by the petitioners seeking appointment, and W.P.(C) No. 6171 of 2022 filed by one Satya Narayan Maharana, an unsuccessful candidate, seeking to quash the entire selection process. Both were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19 May 2023.
The coordinate Bench called for the original records pertaining to the selection process and examined them in detail. It found that the recruitment had been conducted by following the Rules, 1983 meticulously. The central contention raised by the Odisha Legislative Assembly — that members of the Examination Committee had submitted a note of dissent dated 29 August 2021 pointing to irregularities — was examined and rejected. The court observed that no such note of dissent was available on record, that the dissent was not mentioned in any note-sheet between September 2021 and November 2022, and that the belated surfacing of the allegation was an afterthought. A Right to Information reply dated 27 July 2022 had also stated that no such note of dissent existed.
The coordinate Bench accordingly dismissed W.P.(C) No. 6171 of 2022 and directed the Opposite Party No. 1 to convene a meeting of the Selection Board in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1983, place the names of the selected candidates (uploaded on the Odisha Legislative Assembly website on 28 September 2021) before the Board, and take necessary action pursuant to the Board's decision and the approval of the Speaker within eight weeks. It was clarified that if the Selection Board gave its concurrence, the petitioners were to be given appointment to the Reporter posts.
The Odisha Legislative Assembly preferred Writ Appeal No. 1458 of 2023 against that judgment. Satya Narayan Maharana filed Writ Appeal No. 1343 of 2023. Both appeals were dismissed — W.A. No. 1458 of 2023 on 4 August 2023 as infructuous and W.A. No. 1343 of 2023 on 6 March 2024 as infructuous — thereby confirming the common judgment of 19 May 2023.
The July 2023 Cancellation Order and How It Came About
While W.A. No. 1458 of 2023 was still pending, and on the stated pretext of implementing the coordinate Bench's judgment, the Selection Board met on 21 July 2023 and passed the impugned order. The Board observed that it was not appropriate to recommend the petitioners' names for appointment in the absence of any verification or perusal of the original documents relating to the recruitment examination. On 19 July 2023, the Acting Speaker had already approved the minutes of the Selection Board recommending cancellation of the entire selection process and directing a fresh advertisement.
The petitioners came to know of this order upon its publication on the Notice Board and website of the Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat. They filed the present Writ Petition on 24 July 2023. When W.A. No. 1458 of 2023 came up before the Division Bench on 4 August 2023, counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the selection had been cancelled during the pendency of the appeal, making the appeal infructuous. The court noted that the Odisha Legislative Assembly had sought to use the dismissal of that appeal as infructuous to suggest that the petitioners had conceded to the cancellation. Justice Mishra rejected that reading, observing that the petitioners had specifically flagged the cancellation as illegal and under challenge in the present petition.
The Three Issues Framed and How They Were Resolved
Justice Mishra framed three issues: whether there was any procedural irregularity in the selection process justifying its cancellation; whether the Selection Board was justified in cancelling the process on the pretext of implementing the coordinate Bench's direction despite that court's finding of no irregularity; and whether the petitioners' placement in the select list created any legal right justifying a direction for appointment.
On the first two issues, the court held that the findings of the coordinate Bench in the judgment of 19 May 2023 — that the Opposite Parties had failed to provide any valid justification to cancel the recruitment process, and that the note of dissent on which the cancellation rested did not exist on record — were binding. Those findings had attained finality upon dismissal of the writ appeals. The Selection Board's only stated reason in the impugned notice of 21 July 2023 was the non-availability of original documents for verification. But the coordinate Bench had itself called for and examined those very records and returned a finding that no irregularity was present. Raising the same ground again before the Selection Board and using it to cancel the process was, in the court's view, an action hit by res judicata and one that deserved interference.
The court also noted that the Odisha Legislative Assembly had taken contradictory stands: in its Counter Affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021, no allegation of procedural irregularity had been made, while a contrary stand was taken in W.P.(C) No. 6171 of 2022. The coordinate Bench had already recorded this inconsistency.
On the third issue — whether the select list conferred any legal right — Justice Mishra reviewed the settled position drawn from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway (2019) 12 SCC 798, R.S. Mittal v. Union of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) 2 SCC 1, and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha 2025 SCC OnLine SC 523. The consistent principle drawn from these decisions is that a person on the select panel has no indefeasible right to appointment, but the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline appointment on whim. When a challenge is laid to the State's refusal to appoint, the burden shifts to the State to justify its decision with a plausible, non-arbitrary reason.
In the present case, the Odisha Legislative Assembly had failed to discharge that burden. The Selection Board's cancellation — on a ground that had already been examined and found wanting by a court of coordinate jurisdiction — was not a justifiable reason. Issue No. 3 was accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners.
The Rule 7(2) Framework and the Selection Board's Role
Rule 7(2) of the Orissa Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 governs the appointment process for Class-II posts such as Reporters. Under this Rule, appointment can only be made in consultation with the Selection Board, and the final approval rests with the Speaker. The petitioners' counsel argued that the Selection Board's role in granting approval was only formal in nature after the Examination Committee had recommended names, and that the process had effectively concluded with the memorandum of 23 August 2021. The Opposite Party No. 1 contended that the process was still incomplete because neither the Selection Board's concurrence nor the Speaker's approval had been obtained, and that no right had therefore crystallised in the petitioners' favour.
The court did not fully accept either extreme. It acknowledged that the process under Rule 7(2) had not been completed as of the date of the coordinate Bench's 2023 judgment, which is why that court had directed convening the Selection Board rather than directly mandating appointment. However, the coordinate Bench had expressly stated that if the Selection Board gave its concurrence, appointment was to follow. The impugned notice of 21 July 2023 did the opposite — it used the formal step of convening the Selection Board to cancel everything, contrary to both the spirit and the explicit observations of that judgment. Justice Mishra described this as misinterpreting the judgment as an open remand when it was no such thing.
Order
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned notice dated 21 July 2023 (Annexure-7 to the petition). The Opposite Party No. 1, the Odisha Legislative Assembly, was directed to complete all remaining formalities as required under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1983, and to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for the posts of Reporters in the Odisha Legislative Assembly, in terms of the advertisement dated 26 January 2021, within four weeks from the date of production or communication of the certified copy of the judgment. No order as to costs was made.