In this case, the Petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the award dated 23 December, 2016 passed in ID Case No.03 of 2015, has approached this Court. Vide the said impugned award, though the Labour Court answered issue no.1 in favour of the petitioner workman holding that the termination of services of the petitioner workman by the present opposite party management no.1, without compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shortly, ID. Act, 1947, is illegal and unjustified, while answering issue no.2, as to what relief the petitioner workman is entitled to, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,60 000/ to be just and proper with an observation that the opposite party management no 1 has no work under the opposite party management no.2.

Having coverage under the Employees Provident Fund, he was discharging his duty sincerely, honestly, with full dedication. The opposite party management no 1 had issued a gate pass to the petitioner workman, which was extended from time to time. The opposite party management no. 1 terminated his service by way of refusal of employment.  There was no prior notice to the petitioner workman nor was he paid retrenchment compensation prior to such refusal of employment.

The contract work performed by the opposite party management no.1 is of perennial nature, which is necessary for the industry, trade, business, carried on in that establishment and are regular in nature. The petitioner workman was working in the PAP side and the work performed by him, is of perennial nature. The retrenched workers of the opposite party management no.1 are waking in Ms S.B. Industries, Ms Sakti Contractor and Mi’s Jaya Maa Tarini Contractor. Therefore, the petitioner workman has a right for his re engagement under the other contractors of the opposite party management no 2. It being the principal employer, is not only responsible to ensure payment of wages to the contract labourers, but also liable to reengage the retrenched workmen of the opposite party management no. 1.

The Petitioner submitted that sufficient evidences were led before the court below to prove that even after September, 2013, the opposite party management no 1 worked in the establishment of opposite party no.2 till October, 2014. Other co- workmen were reengaged in the establishment of the opposite party no.2, the said work of management no.2 being permanent and perennial in nature. Even though the said evidence led by the workman as W.W. no.1 remained untouched during his cross- examination, the Labour Court, while answering issue no.2, as to relief to be granted, failed to take note of the admitted evidence on record as to reemployment of retrenched workman in terms of section 25-H of the ID. Act, 1947, so also discrimination meted out to the petitioner because of his raising voice against the management for his non-coverage as well as similarly placed workmen under the EPF and ESI Act.

He further submitted that while granting relief, the Labour Court failed to take note of the legal provisions enshrined under Rule 11 of the Orissa Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 (Conditions of Service), which mandates as to applicability of Chapter V-A and V-B of the ID. Act, 1947 to the establishment of opposite party management nos. 1 and 2 and re-engagement of retrenched contract labourers, as is being provided under section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The opposite party management no.2 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned award and the Labour Court has rightly awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the workman, who is a contract labourer. As the opposite party management nol is no more working in the establishment of opposite party management no 2 since 2014, the prayer of the petitioner workman to reinstate or reengage him in terms of section 25-H of the ID. Act, 1947 is misconceived. Further, though the alleged admitted unpaid dues of the petitioner workman (as admitted in the written statement) is Rs.1,42,169, which the present petitioner allegedly did not receive when he was subsequently approached to accept the said amount towards full and final settlement of his dues.

This Court held that the petitioner workman, though was working as a contract labourer under the opposite party management no 1, from the pleadings of the parties, so also evidence on record as detailed above, it is well proved that the nature of job performed by the petitioner workman is permanent and perennial. Further, there is an admission by the management witnesses during their crossexamination that the management no. l was working since 2006 without any public tender floated by the management no.2 and the same work is being executed through different contractors. Some of the co-workmen/contract labourers, though accepted the retrenchment compensation and other benefits by entering into tripartite settlements in presence of the Conciliation Officer, the management no.1 agreed to reengage retrenched contract labourers in terms of section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The said settlements were duly witnessed by the officers of the opposite party management no.2 i.e. Officer (HR), so also Officer, I.R. of IFFCO management, Paradeep Unit and some of them have been reengaged through the existing contractors. Hence, we are of the view that it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party management no 2 to ensure reengagement of the petitioner through other contractors, who were assigned with the said job/work, as was being done by the opposite party management no.1 .

This Court observed that the law is well settled that if employer wants to disengage a workman, in terms of Section 25-F of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to give one month’s prior notice or pay in lieu of RISS the notice period so also retrenchment compensation for each completed year of service and the said payment has to be made simultaneously at the time of retrenchment of the workman. That apart, in view of the provisions enshrined under section 21(4) of the CLRA Act, 1970 and definition of “wages”, as defined in clause (h) of section 2(1) of the CLRA

Act, 1970, read with clause (vi) (a) of section 2, so also section 3(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, we are of the view that it is also obligatory on the part of the opposite party no.2 to ensure payment of unpaid dues as well as compensation to the petitioner workman.

In this case, the Petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and works as Senior Accountant under the Odisha State Housing Board (OSHB), has preferred the Writ Petition challenging the legality and validity of the decision dated 25.01.2019 of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of the OSHB, wherein the only post of Head Accountant was filled up from general category. The said challenge has been made alleging violation of Section 10 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, shortly, the Act, 1975, read with “the Schedule” as prescribed under Rule 3 (Model Roster) of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in the Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1976, shortly, the Rules, 1976.

The brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Accountant after facing selection process of the Board as a SC candidate. On 15.07.2005, he was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on the basis of Seniority-Cum-Merit as a SC candidate. He was performing his duties and responsibilities to the best satisfaction of his authority from the date of his joining There was a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner based on an allegation of a private person about discrepancy in allotment of house in OSHB. But, in the enquiry the charges could not be established. After completion of the Departmental Proceeding, his seniority was fired over and above of his juniors, who had got promotions superseding him Accordingly, the Petitioner’s seniority and financial benefits were allowed vide Office Order dated 01.09.2008. A Final Gradation List as on 12.04.2012 of the Accounts Personnel of the Board was published vide Memo No.5885, dated 26.04.2012. In the list of Senior Accountants, Petitioner’s name was reflected at $1 No. 7. Sl. No.1-Dillip Kumar Dash was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer (General) since 2017. S1. Nos. 2 and 3 were superannuated. One Kamal Kumar Rout (O.P. No.4) was promoted to the said post in terms of the present DPC under challenge, but retired on 30.04.2019. As per the Gradation List, the Petitioner is the senior most Scheduled Caste person and his first entry into the Board’s service was on 21.07.1993. Though his promotion to the post was counted on 15.07.2005, but as per Annexure-2, his seniority was fixed over and

above his junior, namely, Niranjan Mallick (SC). Accordingly, he was the senior most amongst the scheduled caste employees holding the postof Senior Accountant. Therefore, since 1990, though four times promotions were given to various candidates to the post of Head Accountant, but no SC/ ST/OBC employee was promoted to the said post In the meanwhile, one Mahendra Kumar Biswal, Head Accountant retired on 31.07.2013 and another namely, Sri Sital Chandra Mohanty retired on 30.11.2014. As one post has been filled up in the year 2014 Ethat point of time from the general category, thereafter one Head Accountant post was vacant The case of the Petitioner is that since one Head Accountant post was vacant, he filed several representations before the Authority ventilating his grievances about his promotion to the post of Head Accountant as prescribed in “the Schedule” in accordance with the Rule 3 (Model Roster) of the Rules, 1976. The SC and ST Department also requested the OSHB vide letter dated 15.01.2016 to follow the reservation policy. The petitioner has contended that the Order dated 20.04.2016 was mechanical, being silent about the promotion and implementation of the Model Roster’. Hence, the Petitioner filed a representation seeking review of the Order dated 20.04.2016. Due to the inaction of the Authority to act on his representation, the Petitioner again preferred W.P.(C) No. 19277 of 2016. While the matter is pending, the DPC was held on 25.01.2019 Again promotions were given to the post of Head Accountant In the DPC, one Kamal Kumar Rout, Senior Accountant was promoted to the post of Head Accountant, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019. Hence, W.P. [C] No.19277 of 2016 became infructuous in the changed circumstances. It is the case of the Petitioner that while issuing the impugned promotion order, the ORV Act was not followed. The same is now awaiting for administrative approval in the Government. Opposite Party No.1 contended stating that the subject matter and the question of law in W. P. (C) No. 19266 of 2016 pending before this Court as well as in the present Writ Petition being same, the present Writ Petition is misconceived and not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It has further been stated that as per the ruling of the apex Court, reservation cannot exceed the ceiling limit of 50% on post-specific roster, as has been clarified in the Circular dated 15.03.2007 of the Government of Odisha, ST and SC Department. He further contended that the service record of the Petitioner is not clean. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority imposing penalty on the Petitioner have been challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2013 and the same is still pending for adjudication before this Court. Further, one Dillip Kumar Dash was promoted from the post of Senior Accountant to the post of Head Accountant taking into account the seniority in the Gradation List (Annexure-5) and the existing Rules. There were two posts of Head Accountants in OS HB. Out of which, one post of Head Accountant was upgraded to the post of Accounts Officer (General) as per the Order dated 22.03.2014 of the Government in H & U.D. Department. Accordingly, after upgradation of one post

above his junior, namely, Niranjan Mallick (SC). Accordingly, he was the senior most amongst the scheduled caste employees holding the postof Senior Accountant.

Therefore, since 1990, though four times promotions were given to various candidates to the post of Head Accountant, but no SC/ ST/OBC employee was promoted to the said post In the meanwhile, one Mahendra Kumar Biswal, Head Accountant retired on 31.07.2013 and another namely, Sri Sital Chandra Mohanty retired on 30.11.2014. As one post has been filled up in the year 2014 Ethat point of time from the general category, thereafter one Head Accountant post was vacant

The case of the Petitioner is that since one Head Accountant post was vacant, he filed several representations before the Authority ventilating his grievances about his promotion to the post of Head Accountant as prescribed in “the Schedule” in accordance with the Rule 3 (Model Roster) of the Rules, 1976. The SC and ST Department also requested the OSHB vide letter dated 15.01.2016 to follow the reservation policy.

The petitioner has contended that the Order dated 20.04.2016 was mechanical, being silent about the promotion and implementation of the Model Roster’. Hence, the Petitioner filed a representation seeking review of the Order dated 20.04.2016. Due to the inaction of the Authority to act on his representation, the Petitioner again preferred W.P.(C) No. 19277 of 2016. While the matter is pending, the DPC was held on 25.01.2019 Again promotions were given to the post of Head Accountant In the DPC, one Kamal Kumar Rout, Senior Accountant was promoted to the post of Head Accountant, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019. Hence, W.P. [C] No.19277 of 2016 became infructuous in the changed circumstances. It is the case of the Petitioner that while issuing the impugned promotion order, the ORV Act was not followed. The same is now awaiting for administrative approval in the Government.

Opposite Party No.1 contended stating that the subject matter and the question of law in W. P. (C) No. 19266 of 2016 pending before this Court as well as in the present Writ Petition being same, the present Writ Petition is misconceived and not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It has further been stated that as per the ruling of the apex Court, reservation cannot exceed the ceiling limit of 50% on post-specific roster, as has been clarified in the Circular dated 15.03.2007 of the Government of Odisha, ST and SC Department.

He further contended that the service record of the Petitioner is not clean. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority imposing penalty on the Petitioner have been challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2013 and the same is still pending for adjudication before this Court. Further, one Dillip Kumar Dash was promoted from the post of Senior Accountant to the post of Head Accountant taking into account the seniority in the Gradation List (Annexure-5) and the existing Rules. There were two posts of Head Accountants in OS HB. Out of which, one post of Head Accountant was upgraded to the post of Accounts Officer (General) as per the Order dated 22.03.2014 of the Government in H & U.D. Department. Accordingly, after upgradation of one post of Head Accountant, the sanctioned post of Head Accountant comes to one only. The post of Head Accountant having been reduced to one (single post) in OSHB, the question of applicability of reservation policy of SC and ST for the said post does not arise. After upgradation of one post of Head Accountant to the post of Accounts Officer, Sital Chandra Mohanty, being the senior most in the gradation list of Head Accountants, was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2014. Similarly, Mahendra Kumar Biswal retired on 31.07.2013 as Head Accountant, on attaining the age of superannuation After retirement of Mahendra Kumar Biswal one Dillip Kumar Dash, being the senior most among the Senior Accountants in the Gradation List, was promoted to the only post of Head Accountant.

The Court observed that since the Opposite Party No.1 sought for creation of post and a clear cut sanction was accorded for creation of post of “Accounts Officer (General)” in terms of proviso under Section 10(4) of the Orissa Housing Board Act, 1968, this Court is of the view that it is not a case of mere upgradation of post of Head Accountant to the Accounts Officer (General). After such creation of post by up-gradation, admittedly, there was/ is only one post of Head Accountant remaining with the Opposite Party No. 1 (OSHB) to be filled up by way of promotion, and in view of provisions enshrined under Section 3[j] of the ORV Act, 1975 and the ORV Rules 1976 made thereunder, the ORV Act and Rules are not to be followed for promotion to the said single post of “Head Accountant”.

From the legal provisions enshrined under Section 10 (4) of the Odisha Housing Board Act, 1968 read with the correspondences made between OSHB and the State Government, including the sanction accorded vide communication dated 22.03.2014 [Annexure-B), as has been detailed above, it is amply clear that as required under proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, 1968, sanction was accorded by the State Government for creation of post of Accounts Officer (General) in the scale of pay of Rs. 9300- 34800/- with Grade pay Rs.4600/- by way of upgradation of one post of Head Accountant, in response to letter dated 12.06.2008 of the Housing Board vide which it was communicated to Government that Board has decided to convert on equivalent post to that of Accounts Officer (General) for the purpose of providing promotional berth to Head Accountants. After such upgradation, the remaining post of Head Accountant being one, in view of Sub-Section (f) under Section 3 of the ORV Act, 1975, this Court is of further view that the said Act is inapplicable to the case of the Petitioner, which is the sole basis to make such a prayer for promotion to the post of Head Accountant applying the provisions of ORV Act, 1975 .

This Court held that the Petitioner that such upgradation of post of Head Accountant for creation of the post of Accounts Officer (General) is a mere upgradation simpliciter and does not form any separate grade or cadre and the candidate continues to hold the same post of Head Account, is misconceived. Therefore, all the issues, as detailed above, are answered herewith against the Petitioner. The Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

In this case, the opposite party was engaged as “Anchor Head” on contractual basis for a period of two years under the petitioner No.1-company vide Order dated 20.05.2015. While working as such, on 01.08.2018 the Chief Editor of the petitioner No.1-Company by his e-mail dated 01.08.2018, asked the opposite party to have her reply on the issue of “arrogance” as shown in the parking place, to which the opposite party by her e-mail dated 02.08.2018 replied that she has every right to react over the situation and her reaction was not harsh. However, on receiving many complaints pertaining to disobedience and not taking responsibility of work assigned to the opposite party, management, having sustained heavy pecuniary loss, was constrained to terminate the service of opposite party by Order dated 18.08.2018. Pursuant to the same, the opposite party raised an industrial dispute before the District Labour Officer, Khurda, by Registered Post on 13.09.2018. As the said dispute could not be resolved amicably during the stipulated period of 45 days, the opposite party preferred I.D. Case No.59 of 2018 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, resorting to provision enshrined under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act seeking, inter alia, for declaring her termination Order dated 18.08.2018 to be illegal and unjustified and with a prayer to reinstate her with full back wages, so also to compensate her for such illegal action taken by the management.

The petitioner contended that the opposite party is not a workman and has not made an application to the Conciliation Officer relating to her dispute, her appointment being purely on contractual basis valid for two years w.e.f. 20.05.2015 till 19.05.2017, her service expired automatically on 19.05.2017 and thereafter, she was continuing purely on oral contract basis. However, in terms of condition No.11 of letter of engagement, her service was terminated on 18.08.2018 for the interest of the management and there was no necessity for domestic inquiry and hence, there is no illegality on the part of the management in terminating the service of the opposite party-workman.

Opposite party further submitted that before passing the impugned award, the Labour Court gave sufficient opportunity to the Petitionersemployer to have its say, so also to crossexamine the workman witnesses and lead evidence to substantiate its pleadings. But the petitioners- management failed to avail the said opportunity. Opposite Party further submitted that the findings of the Labour Court that she is a workman and her engagement is not contractual and rather, the action of the management is punitive and her termination is illegal and unjustified as before terminating her service no domestic inquiry was conducted by the management and thereby no perversity in the impugned award, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

This Court observed that the law is well settled that if employer wants to disengage a workman, in terms of Section 25-F of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to give one month’s prior notice or pay in lieu of the notice period, so also retrenchment compensation for each completed year of service and the said payment has to be made simultaneously at the time of retrenchment of the workman. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Sundar Rout v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (1990) 69 CLT 357, held that the payment should be made simultaneously along with the order of retrenchment in order to constitute a single transaction. It was further held that compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is required even if employment is contractual or for a specific term .

Further, though Clause-11 of the letter of engagement dated 25.05.2015 provides that contract of engagement may be terminated by the employer in its interest by giving prior notice of one month and similarly, the opposite party may terminate the contract of engagement in her interest by giving one month’s notice and there is no stipulation in the said terms and conditions as to “payment of one month salary in lieu of the notice period”, though there is a mention as to payment of one month salary to the opposite party-workman vide order of relieve dated 18.08.2018, admittedly neither there was one month’s prior notice giving nor one month’s salary was paid to her at the time of issuance of the relieve order dated 18.08.2018, which well demonstrates that she was rather intimated that in terms of the conditions of her service agreement she will be paid one month’s salary after meeting the official formalities and clearance from the H.R. cell. Further, no where it has been averred in the written statement that pursuant to such communication, she was paid one month’s salary in lieu of the notice period, even though there is no such stipulation in clause-11 of her offer of engagement as to paying salary of one month in lieu of the notice period.

Case Number: WP(C) No.21215 of 2019
Date of decision: 19th December 2023

 The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner, though had secured more marks than his counterparts, his name could not find place in the provisional select list of 106 candidates on the ground that his candidature was rejected vide Order dated 19.12.2018. It is crystal clear from the document of OPSC that the Petitioner had secured more marks than many other selected candidates. It is alleged that though marks in OCS (main) examination and personality test were published, the Roll Number of the Petitioner was missing. It has been further averred that from the result sheet, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner secured much more marks than many other candidates and his name/roll number should have been placed in between serial nos. 17 & 18 of the merit list.

It is further case of the Petitioner that he has secured much more marks than the last candidate selected under unreserved male as well as Physically Handicapped (Visually Impaired) category. Being shocked with Notice No.10121 dated 19.12.2018, the Petitioner submitted representations to different quarters, however, was turned down. Being aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition.

The Petitioner submitted that the State, as an ideal employer, holds recruitment examination through recruiting Agencies to select the best from among the rest. But, in the instant case, by rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner after he successfully cleared all the examinations, the recruiting Agency tried its best to select the less meritorious candidates as per their documentary admission. It is further submitted that while submitting application before OPSC, the Petitioner has not suppressed any material fact and approached the Agency with clean hands. After scrutiny of such documents, his application was allowed and the Petitioner was give nce to appear in preliminary examination. The candidature of on the sole ground that Petitioner was rejected suffering from 40% permanent disability though allegedly it should have been more than 40%. The Petitioner has not availed age relaxation in the examination meant for PwD candidates

It was further submitted that the law is well settled that if any person belonging to reserved category is selected on the basis of merit in open competition along with general category candidates, then he would be considered as unreserved candidate and he shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In case he secures less marks, then only his merit is to be weighed along with other candidates of such reserved category. He further submitted that Section 2(1) of RFWD Act, 2016 defines bench mark disability of a person. It means a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability. When the certifying Authority certified the Petitioner as 40% disabled, rejection of his candidature is contrary to the RPWD Act, 2016. After rejection of candidature of the Petitioner, OPSC selected several candidates having 40% disability as has been detailed in the Writ Petition Rejection of candidature of the Petitioner on the ground that he has 40% disability, is illegal and discriminatory, being contrary to the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016.

Opposite Party No.7 (OPSC), submitted that the role of OPSC is limited. It has to act basing on the requisition received from the Government Rules and Regulation and as the provisions of relevant recruitment accordingly, it issue 2017-18 for OCS Examination Advertisement No.11 of he Petitioner applied for the said examination as a PwD candidate. He further submitted that Para 2(2) of the SSEPD Department Resolution dated 05.09 2017 stipulates that person with more than 40% of disability, as certified by the Competent Certifying Authority appointed under Section 57(1) of the Act, 2016. As the Petitioner is having only 40% disability, his candidature was rightly rejected by the Commission. Being directed by the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.422(C) of 2019, the Commission had considered the matter and intimated its decision to the Petitioner vide communication dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure-15), which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition There is no infirmity in the impugned order deserving interference. Rather, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine as the OPSC has acted strictly in terms of requisition of the Government in G.A. and P.G. Department.

Opposite Party No 9, submitted that inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the select list (Annexure-8) to the Odisha Civil Services Examination, 2017 shall alter the position of all the candidates from the point where the name of the Petitioner is proposed to be included in terms of the prayer made in the Writ Petition. As a result, person selected and served for a period more than three years in Group-A service, may be reverted back to Group-B service having substantial difference in his status of the service condition and the last man in the select list may be out of employment, who has not been made a party and without affording him any opportunity of being heard, the prayer of the Petitioner may not be entertained.

This Court held that from the said provisions under the Act, 2016, it is amply clear that Section 2(r) is in respect to person with benchmark disability of 40% and above, whereas Section 3 of the said Act speaks about equality and nondiscrimination. Sections 33 and 34 of the said Act deal with identification of posts for reservation whereas Sections 56, 57 and 58 speak about procedure for issue of disability certificate by the designation of certifying authority. Similarly, Section 89 of the Act, 2016 prescribes as to punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of the said Act.

This Court further held that after promulgation of the RPwD Act, 2016, which came into effect from 19.04.2017, the State Government issued a Resolution dated 05.09.2017, wherein an error was crept in vide Para 2 (2) of the said Resolution, which speaks that persons with more than 40% disability, as certified by the competent Certifying Authority appointed under Section 57(1) of the Act, 2016, irrespective of nature of disability, shall be eligible for reservation.

The OPSC (O.P. No.7), to substantiate its action to be legal and justified, has relied on the requisition sent to it by the concemed Department of the State Government. Such requisition was admittedly sent to OPSC based on the erroneous Resolution dated 05.09.2017 of the SSEPD Department, which was subsequently rectified by the Department on 16.07.2018, as the terms of the Resolution dated 05.09.2017 was contrary to Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016. Admittedly, the OPSC processed the application of the Petitioner in terms in of the provisions prescribed under the Act, 2016. However, at final stage of selection, when the Petitioner was called for personality test, it came to the notice of the OPSC that the percentage of disability of the Petitioner to be 40% only instead of “more than 40%”, as prescribed in the erroneous requisition sent by the concerned Department. Hence, invoking the note under Clause-11 of the said Advertisement No.11 of 2017-18, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected by the OPSC. Such a mistake being dehors the law, was rightly rectified by the concerned Department of the State Government (Opposite Party No.3)

This Court iterated that the Advertisement No.11 of 2017-18 of OPSC for recruitment of OCS Examination, 2017 pertaining to Point No. 5(1), with regard to reservation of one post under the PWD for blind, should not have been contrary to the statute i. e. provisions enshrined under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016. Hence, action of the Authority concerned, including the OPSC, thereby debarring the Petitioner from his legitimate legal right to seek for appointment under the reserved category of PWD for Blind/ Low vision based on such faulty advertisement, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.

From left to right – Pasapalli texture craft from Sambalpur and Applique from