##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 2379 & 5815 of 2024

Subhakanta Mishra (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Petitioners Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

(cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA

Mr. A. Behera, Adv. for O.P.2

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.04.2026 Order No.

09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.26.03.2026, Mr. A.

Behera, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC produced the result of both the Petitioners in a sealed

cover and the same was opened in presence of both the learned counsels appearing for the Parties.

4. From the result sheet, it is found that while Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2379 of 2024 has secured 5

marks in the interview out of 10, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5815 of 2024 has secured 7 marks in the interview

out of 10.

// 2 //

4.1 . Mr. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Commission taking into the mark secured by the Petitioners in the interview and the mark secured in

the written examination as well as the GATE score contended that both the Petitioners have qualified in

the selection process.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

6. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, both the maters were heard analogously

and disposed of the present common order.

7. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission for recruitment to the post of Asst. Executive Engineer Electrical in Group-A of the Orissa Engineering Service under the Department of Energy vide advertisement No.21 of 23/ 2024 under Annexure-3, both the Petitioners were eligible to participate in the selection

process for the post in question.

7.1 . It is contended that as per the advertisement the educational qualification so prescribed in Para-4 reads

as follows:-

(cid:0)·4. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:

A candidate must hold a Degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent qualification from any University or Institutions recognized by the Government

or he / she must be an Associated Member of the

Institution of Engineers of India in Electrical

(cid:0)((cid:0)Q(cid:0)J(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)H(cid:0)H(cid:0) U(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)J(cid:0)µ(cid:0)(cid:17)

Page 2 of 9

// 3 //

7.2 . It is contended that even though as per the advertisement Petitioners were eligible to participate in the selection process, but while issuing the impugned corrigendum on 19.01.2024, when the qualification

possessed by the Petitioners i.e. Degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering was held as not equivalent to the degree in Electrical Engineering, Petitioners

challenging the corrigendum approached this Court in both the Writ Petitions. Pursuant to the interim order

passed in both the Writ Petitions, Petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process, but with the condition that the result will not be published without leave of this Court. Subsequently this Court passed further interim order in both the cases with a

direction to keep reserve one (1) post each for both the Petitioners.

7.3. It is further contended that even though the Petitioners do not have the qualification of degree in

Electrical Engineering, but they participated in the selection process with having the equivalent

qualification of Electrical & Electronics Engineering. As per the certificates available in both the writ petitions,

Petitioners possess the qualification of Degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the

Commission.

Page 3 of 9

// 4 //

7.4 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners accordingly contended that since Petitioners have

qualified the recruitment process, so contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission, this Court may dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Commission to publish the result