SANJAY KU CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE entire process for appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate under Appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate (Orissa) Rules, 2000 is under challenge by the petitioners in all the above Writ Applications. Since similar questions have been raised in all the applications, this common order shall govern all the four Writ Applications.

(2.) PURSUANT to the Notification of Appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate (Orissa) Rules, 2000 in the Orissa Gazette, on 7.9.2000 framed by Orissa High Court under Section 13, Cr. P.C. (under Annexure 1) (henceforth called as Rule), the Registrar (Administration), Orissa High Court, requested the Registrar (Judicial) under Annexure 2 inviting willingness of the candidates for filling up 18 posts of Special Judicial Magistrates in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500.10,500/ in different parts of Orissa who are having requisite qualification under Rule 4(b). All the petitioner applied for post and appeared in the examination. The petitioner in Writ Application No. 581 of 2002 namely, Ramesh Chandra Mishra working in Orissa Administrative Tribunal also applied through proper channel, but he was not allowed to appear in the written examination. On the strength of the order of this Court he also appeared in the examination, but, his result is yet to be published. The examination was held on 10.2.2002 and only 21 candidates were called for viva voce test which was scheduled to be held on 10.5.2003. As the petitioners were not called to appear in viva voce examination, they approached the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the Rule to be ultravires on various grounds.

(3.) MR . J. K. Rath, appearing for the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Mishra has contended that the petitioner is eligible for the post and having sufficient experience for his past engagement in the Orissa High Court as well as in different posts in the judgeship of Puri, he should be allowed to appear and his result may be published. He also contended that Rule 4(b) to be ultra vires because of non incorporation of Senior Ministerial Officers of Administrative Tribunals. The Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently objected to the contention of counsel Mr. Rath contending that only the persons working at present are within the fold of Rule 4(b) and, therefore, a person working in the past is not within the purview. We may reproduce the eligibility of Clause 4(a) and (b) which reads as follows :