SURESH CH PRADHAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 examination 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 petitioners have therefore prayed for a direction to the State Government to issue a notification for the examination for recruitmenL 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 process. 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 Ors. (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 written examinations. By the said judgment, this Court further directed 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.) 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 Ors. (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, directions for amendment to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 could not be given at all by this Court,