The main legal point established is that appointments must adhere to statutory provisions, and misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts can impact the appointment process.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Orissa Judicial Service, Class II pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2003-2004 and quashing the Order Dated 22.12.2005 ( Annex. - 18) rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for the said appointment.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Orissa Public Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as "Commission" ) issued Advertisement No. 10 of 2003-2004 on 17.11.2003 inviting applications for competitive examinations for appointment to 121 posts of Orissa Judicial Service, Class II by direct appointment. Out of the said vacancies 23 were reserved for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as "SEBC") to which the Petitioner belonged. Petitioner also applied in pursuance of the said advertisement and succeeded in the written examination. He was called for to face the interview on 21.6.2004 and his original documents, certificate of caste etc. were also examined. The attestation form was also filled up by the Petitioner on the direction of the Opposite Parties wherein he had to make a declaration whether he had been convicted by any court of law and if so to furnish details. The Petitioner answered in the negative. Result of the said examination was declared on 30.6.2004. The provisional merit list contained 55 names. Name of the Petitioner found place at serial 54 in the said merit list. The said list was sent for approval to the State Government and it was approved as required under Rule 21(1) of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 ( hereinafter called the "Rules of 1994") vide letter dated 28.7.2004. The original documents of the Petitioner were examined on 3.8.2004. He also faced the medical examination on 1.9.2004. The Opposite Parties offered appointment to 49 candidates out of the said list on 25.10.2004 and 5 candidates on 9.11.2004. Ignoring the claim of the Petitioner, the candidate whose name appeared at serial No. 55 was also appointed. Petitioner made a representation on 17.11.2004 to the Law Department of the State Government raising the grievance that he had been given hostile discrimination by the Opposite Parties. Petitioner made another representation dated 19.2.2005 that no criminal case was pending against him. It appears that the State Government and the Commission had decided to give further appointment beyond the select list in consultation with the High Court as not even half of the vacancies had been filled up. Therefore, 32 names were recommended by the Commission vide letter dated 4.4.2005 for approval of the Government. The Government approved the said 32 names on 12.4.2005 and offered them appointment on 14.9.2005. The Petitioner's representation was rejected on 22.12.2005 pointing out that the select list had expired on 27.7.2005 after one year of its coming into existence on 28.7.2004. The Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on 24.1.2006 challenging rejection of his candidature and giving him hostile treatment.

3. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the select list prepared on 28.7.2004 expired on 27.7.2005. Undoubtedly 32 candidates whose names were recommended by the Commission were approved by the State Government 12.4.2005, but they had been appointed on 14.9.2005 after expiry of the select list. The second select list was alive for further one year i.e. up to 11.4.2006. Thus, the Petitioner was entitled for appointment. Therefore, the Petitioner had been given hostile treatment by the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner filled up all the columns furnishing information that he had never been convicted.. In fact on the date of furnishing the information three criminal cases were pending against him. But none of those cases had been decided. The question of furnishing information suo motu that criminal