The court ruled that no reservation is necessary for super specialty posts, affirming that adherence to merit must prevail in such appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

Since both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the process of the selection initiated vide Advertisement No. 20/2021-22 dtd.10.11.2021 so issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (in short Commission) for recruitment to the post of Asst. Professor (Super Speciality) in Group-A under the Odisha Medical Education Service (in short OMES) Cadre, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

2. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsels appearing for the Parties in both the writ petitions that while issuing the impugned advertisement vide Advertisement No. 20/2021-22 for the post in question, since reservation has not been provided in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 6 of the Odisha Medical Education Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2021 (in short 2021 Rules), the selection process initiated pursuant to the impugned advertisement is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules reads as follows:-

“6. Reservations.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules reservations of vacancies or posts, as the case may be, for-

(a) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 and the rules made there under; and (b) SEBC, Women, Sports Persons, Ex- servicemen and Persons with Disabilities shall be made in accordance with the provisions made under such Act, Rules, Orders or instructions issued in this respect by the Government, from time to time.”

3. It is contended that Petitioners in both these cases since belong to reserve category and because of the nature of advertisement issued, no reservation was provided for any of the candidates belonging to reserve category and all the 19 posts so advertised were meant for UR candidates, the process of selection so undertaken by the Commission is vitiated.

3.1. It is also contended that pursuant to the interim order passed initially vide order dtd.22.06.2022, further modified vide order dtd.17.04.2023, two (2) posts in the discipline of Neurology and Gastroenterology, Sl. Nos. 6 & 9 of the Advertisement were kept reserved while permitting the Opp. Parties to proceed with the selection process in respect of other disciplines.

3.2. It is also contended that appointment made pursuant to the impugned advertisement was further held to be subject to final outcome of the writ application. It is however contended that since in the impugned advertisement, in respect of other disciplines, only one post was advertised, there was no occasion to make reservation for reserve category candidates as against those disciplines. However, since in the discipline Urology, Neurology, Gastroenterology and Surgical Gastroenterology, the post advertised was more than one, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules, required no. of posts should have been kept reserved for reserve category candidates.

3.3. It is further contended that Petitioners as provided under Rule 4 of the 2021 Rules were having the required eligibility criteria as against the post of Asst. Professor in the discipline Neurology and Gastroenterology. However, since there was no reservation provided for reserve category candidates in respect of the discipline Neurology and Gastroenterology, both the Peti