(1.) In these three writ petitions common prayer has been made and as such the same are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) These writ petitions have been preferred by the State of Odisha against the order passed by Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dtd.12.12.2013 in O.A. No.1417 of 2012 whereby and where under the notification issued by the State Government on 7.2.2009 reserving 27% of the post and services under the State in case of direct recruitment for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (in short SEBC) leading to exceeding the extent of reservation to 50% ceiling, has been said to be ultra-virus and accordingly directed the State Authorities to modify the advertisement at Annexure-1 to the extent that reservation of post shall not exceed ceiling limit of 50% in total in respect of S.T., S.C. and S.E.B.C. categories of candidates as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) The fact leading to institution of the original application before the Tribunal is that the applicant being a general category candidate and an aspirant for the post of Assistant Section Officer in the Odisha Secretariat has filed original application praying therein for issuance of direction to the respondents to modify the advertisement No.8 of 2012-13 for recruitment to the post of Asst. Section Officer of the Governor's Secretariat and State Secretariat to the extent that reservation cannot exceed ceiling limit of 50% as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, further prayer has been made for a declaration that any advertisement for public employment exceeding 50% ceiling limit of caste based reservation is illegal and to quash the Orissa Reservation of Posts and Services (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes) Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 2008), fixing 27% reservation for S.E.B.C. category of posts and services under the State since is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. v. Union of India and Others, etc., reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477.