IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1099 of 2025 In the matter an Appeal under Section 10 of the Letter Patent of the Patna High Court, read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948.

….

State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Energy Department.

… Appellant -Versus-

1. B. Abakash … Respondent

2. Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, General Administration Department.

3. Secretary, Odisha Public Service Proforma Commission, Cuttack … Respondents Advocates Appeared in this case:

For Appellant - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA. For Respondents - Mr.Biswabihari Mohanty Advocate for R.1 on caveat.

….

CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 25.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J This Intra Court Appeal by the State essentially lays challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 21.01.2025, whereby WPC(OA) No. 3285/2018 filed by Respondent-employee herein, having been favoured, relief has been according to him in the following terms:

“7.4 Therefore, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.30.07.2018 under Annexure-11 as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the said order and while quashing the same directs Opp. Party No.1 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against the vacancies caused due to non joining of the candidate placed as Sl. Nos. 2 & 4 with due adjustment of the candidates placed at Sl. Nos.7 & 9 against those two vacancies and appointing the Petitioner as against the vacancy caused on such adjustment of the candidates, placed at SI. NO.7 & 9 in SEBC category.

7.5 This Court accordingly Opp. Party No.1 to provide appointment to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. But such order of appointment shall be prospective in nature and Petitioner will not claim any benefit of seniority vis-à-vis the candidates appointed in terms of Annexure-5 or appointment of the candidate placed at Sl. No.13, who was appointed vide order dt.03.03.2017. Petitioner is directed to file an undertaking that he will not claim any seniority after being provided with the appointment in terms of the present order at the time of his joining.”

2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellant-State vehemently argues that the impugned order is in violation of the 50% ceiling limit to the reserved posts; secondly, the said order speaks of re-arrangement of the ranking of candidates to the prejudice of those who are already in the employment having been engaged in the SEBC category; and lastly, that it is a settled position of law where mere inclusion in Select List does not ensure appointment to the post unless a comparatively merit deficient candidate in the same category has been appointment against the post in question, and the Respondent-employee figures below the appointed candidates. So contending he seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent-employee appearing on caveat, vehemently makes submissions in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. He places before us certain rulings of the Apex Court, contending that the impugned order is structured on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and therefore, the same is inexplicable. So contending he seeks dismissal of this appeal. He submits that, his client’s Appeal needs to be favoured by granting him the benefit of impugned order by quashing the last paragraph which reads as under:

“7.5 This Court accordingly Opp. Party No.1 to provide appointment to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. But such order of appointme