KHETRABASI BISWAL Vs. AJAYA KUMAR BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17.6.1996 the Orissa Public Service commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement No. 5 of 1996-97, inviting application in the prescribed form for 25 posts of Temporary Munsif (Emergency recruitment) in Class II of Orissa Judicial service.

(2.) The appellants herein and the respondents along with the others submitted an application before the Commission.

(3.) A written examination was held by the commission and in terms thereof, a list of the successful candidates was prepared. The selectees were later on interviewed by the Commission and in the said proceeding a sitting judge of the High Court acted as an expert. Thereafter the select list has been prepared on the basis of merit, which contained 39 names. The names of the appellants, admittedly, found place therein. The said list was sent to the State government for its approval. The State Government, however, on receiving the said list, prepared another list. The name of Khetrabasi biswal also found place therein. The names of the appellants, namely, Dipali Chand and govinda Chandra Parida and another were omitted. Several writ applications were filed by ajaya Kumar Baral, Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan, krushna Chandra Jena, Bijaya Kumar Patra and Govinda Chandra Parida and Anr. filed petitions bearing O. J. C. Nos. 14, 380 of 1996, 5566, 6040, 6041 and 6088 of 1997 respectively. It is also not in dispute that one of the appellants, namely, Dipali Chand in Civil Appeal Nos. 5986 and 5987 of 1998 also filed a writ Petition No. 13687 of 1997, which is still pending. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court purporting to interpret the service rules prepared the list of the candidates, who should have been selected. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the High Court, offers of appointment were issued by the State Government in terms of the list prepared by the High Court. The appellants herein were not party to the writ applications. The High Court, while preparing its own list, did not think it fit to issue notices to other candidates like the appellants herein, who had suffered prejudice by reason of the directions issued by the High Court. The appellants, therefore, were necessary parties.