CHANDAN DAS vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14214 of 2025
CNR No.ODHC010353232025
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
………………
Chandan Das …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. S. Sekhar, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
Mr. T. Patnaik, Advocate for
O.P. No.4
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:30.10.2026 and Date of Judgment:30.10.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner made a submission that he may be
permitted to delete Opp. Party No.5 from the cause
// 2 //
title as he has no grievance as against the said Opp.
Party. Accordingly, permission is accorded to delete
Opp. Party No.5 from the Cause Title in Court.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter
alia challenging the rejection, rejecting the claim of
the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as
against the post of OAS-A (JB) in terms of the
provisions contained under Section 34(2) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (In
short, “the Act”) read with Para-5(3) of the Resolution
dated 25.02.2021 so issued by the Govt. in the
Department of Social Security & Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities under Annexure-10.
3. 1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the OPSC vide
Advertisement No.17 of 2022-23 under Annexure-1,
Page 2 of 13
// 3 //
petitioner made the application as a disabled
candidate having belong to Category-III. It is
contended that in the said advertisement as against
the post of OAS-A (JB), the total vacancy was
indicated at 242 and Reservation in respect of
Category-III was indicated at 3(three) and in respect
of Category-IV at 2.
3. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that in the said selection
process, vacancy indicated as against Category-IV at
2, was a Backlog vacancy, taking into account the
fact that such vacancies could not be filled up in
terms of the earlier advertisement issued vide
Advertisement No.15 of 2021-22 under Annexure-
E/1 to the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.1.
3. 3. It is contended that since the vacancy as
against Category-IV, so indicated in the
Advertisement No.17 of 2022-23, was a Backlog
vacancy, in view of the provisions contained under
Page 3 of 13
// 4 //
Section 34(2) of the Act, 2016 read with Para-5(3) of
the Resolution dated 25.02.2021, the said vacancies
are inter-changeable.
Section 34(2) of the Act and Para-5(3) of the
Resolution reads as follows:-
“34(2) Where in any recruitment year any
vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability
of a suitable person with benchmark disability or
for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall
be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment
year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also
suitable person with benchmark disability is not
available, it may first be filled by interchange
among the five categories and only when there is
no person with disability available for the post in
that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by
appointment of a person, other than a person with
disability.
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an
establishment is such that a given category of
person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be
interchanged among the five categories with the
prior approval of the appropriate Government.”
xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
“5(3). If in any recruitment year, any vacancy
cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a
suitable person with benchmark disability or for
any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be
carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year
and if in the succeeding recruitment year also
suitable person with benchmark disability is not
available, it may first be filled by interchange
among the five categories and only when there is
no person with disability available for the post in
that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by
appointment of a person, other than a person with
disability;
Provided that, if the nature of vacancies in an
establishment is such that a given category of
Page 4 of 13
// 5 //
person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be
interchanged among the five categories with the
prior approval of the appropriate Government.”
3. 4. However, without doing the same petitioner was
appointed as against the vacancy meant for ORS
Group-B, in terms of the notice dated 19.10.2024, so
issued by the Commission under Annexure-7. It is
contended that as per the said recommendation
made by the Commission with issuance of the final
select list under Annexure-7, petitioner having made
the application as against Category-III, was provided
with appointment as against ORS Group-B Post.
3. 5. However, it is contended that since 2(two) posts
in Category-IV, so reflected in the Advertisement
issued under Annexure-1 were Backlog vacancies
and could not be filled up, with recommendation
made by the Commission, in view of the provisions
contained under Section 34(2) of the Act read with
Para-5(3) of the Resolution, both the posts should
have been inter-changed by providing appointment
to the petitioner. But without proper appreciation of
Page 5 of 13
// 6 //
the aforesaid provision so contained in 2016 Act and
the Resolution issued in the year 2021 under
Annexure-10, claim of the petitioner was rejected
vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 under
Annexure-13, and that too without assigning any
reason whatsoever.
3. 6. Not only that vide letter dated 20.11.2024,
though the department requested the Govt.-O.P.
No.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner in
terms of the Resolution issued on 25.02.2021 under
Annexure-10, but without looking into the said
provision and the provision contained under the Act,
claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the
impugned order dated 17.12.2024 under Annexure-
13.
3. 7. It is accordingly contended that since it is not
disputed that both the posts in the rank of OAS-
A(JB) in Category-IV, were Backlog vacancies, taking
into account the position of the petitioner in the
Page 6 of 13
// 7 //
select list issued by the Commission under
Annexure-7, he should have been appointed as
against the post of OAS-A (JB), with due interchange
among the five categories.
3. 8. It is also contended that in Para-14 of the
counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.1, the
aforesaid fact is admitted with regard to the status of
both the posts meant for Category-IV as Backlog
vacancies. Para-14 of the counter affidavit reads as
follows:-
“14. That, the above 2 unfilled PwD vacancies of
OAS cadre for Odisha Civil Service Examination
for the year 2021 have been carried forward for
the first time and has been added in the
advertisement for the Odisha Civil Service
Examination, 2023. A copy of the relevant page of
the OPSC Advertisement for the Odisha Civil
Service Examination, 2023 is annexed herewith
as Annexure-F/1. Therefore, the unfilled PwD
vacancies of the OAS cadre in respect of the
Odisha Civil Service Examination for the year from
2017 to 2021 has been properly carried forward
as per provision of Para-5 of the SSEPD
Department Resolution No.1843 dated 25.02.2021
under Annexure-B/1 and the same have been
included in the Advertisement for the Odisha Civil
Service Examination, 2023. The petitioner has
been allocated with Odisha Revenue Service
under SEBC-PwD-CAT-III against the vacancies of
the Odisha Civil Service Examination, 2022 where
no unfilled vacancies of previous year pertaining
to OAS cadre was present for being carried
forward and interchanged.”
Page 7 of 13
// 8 //
4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that since petitioner made his application
as a disabled candidate having belong to Category-
III, taking into account the position in the select list
issued by the Commission on 19.10.2024 under
Annexure-7, petitioner was appointed as against the
post of ORS Group-B. However, when such a claim
was made for inter-change of both the posts so
meant for Category-IV and to provide appointment to
the petitioner as against the post of OAS-A(JB), such
claim was duly considered and rejected by Opp.
Party No.1 vide order dated 17.12.2024 under
Annexure-13.
4. 1. It is also contended that taking into account the
position of the petitioner in the select list and the
claim made as a Category-III candidates, 2(two)
similarly situated Category-III PWD candidates,
placed at Sl. No.167 and Sl. No.314 of the select list,
were recommended and appointed as against the
post of OAS-A(JB).
Page 8 of 13
// 9 //
4. 2. However, taking into account the position of the
petitioner in the select list at Sl. No.455, he was
rightly appointed as against ORS Group-B post. It is
accordingly contended that no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned
rejection, so far as claim of the petitioner is
concerned.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the OPSC on the
other hand contended that the Advertisement in
question was issued under Annexure-1, basing on
the requisition made by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 on
17.12.2022 under Annexure-A/2. It is contended
that taking into account the position of the petitioner
in the final select list issued on 19.10.2024 under
Annexure-7 and the vacancies indicated in the
advertisement, petitioner was recommended for his
appointment as against ORS Group-B post. It is also
contended that the Commission has no power for
interchange of the posts meant for Category-IV.
Page 9 of 13
// 10 //
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made, it is found
that petitioner participated in the recruitment
process in terms of the advertisement issued by the
Commission vide Advertisement No.17 of 2022-23 of
the Odisha Civil Services Examination, 2022 under
Annexure-1. It is not disputed that petitioner made
his application as a disabled candidate having belong
to Category-III. Basing on the final select list issued
by the Commission on 19.10.2024 under Annexure-7
and the position of the petitioner in the select list at
455, petitioner was appointed as against the post of
ORS Group-B. Two(2) of the persons in same
category being placed above the petitioner in the
select list at Sl. No.167 and 314, were appointed as
against the post of OAS-A(JB) in respect of the
vacancies meant for Category-III, in the
advertisement issued under Annexure-1.
6. 1. However, after such appointment of the
petitioner as against the post of ORS Group-B and
Page 10 of 13
// 11 //
taking into account the fact that the vacancies meant
for Category-IV in the advertisement being Backlog
vacancies, relying on the provisions contained under
Section 34(2) of the Act, 2016 read with Para-5(3) of
the Resolution dated 25.02.2021, petitioner raised
his claim for his appointment as against the post of
OAS Group-A (JB), with due interchange of the
posts.
6. 2. However, such claim of the petitioner was
rejected vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2024
under Annexure-13 of Opp. Party No.1. Placing
reliance on the provisions contained under Section
34(2) of the Act and Para-5(3) of the Resolution
dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-10, this Court is of
the view that since in the advertisement issued
under Annexure-1, 2 (two) posts were meant for
Category-IV as against the post of OAS Group-A (JB)
and it is not disputed that those 2(two) vacancies are
Backlog vacancies, it is the view of this Court that in
view of the aforesaid provisions with due interchange
Page 11 of 13
// 12 //
of the posts among the five categories petitioner’s
claim should have been allowed.
6. 3. It is also found from the RTI information
available under Annexure-15 series, those 2(two)
vacancies in Category-IV are yet to be filled up.
6. 4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court
while quashing the impugned rejection so issued by
Opp. Party No.1 dated 17.12.2024 under Annexure-
13, directs the said authority to provide appointment
to the petitioner as against the post of OAS Group-A
(JB) with regard to the vacancy meant for Category-
IV with issuance of a fresh order of appointment, if
petitioner comes within the zone of consideration
taking into account his position in the select list
issued under Annexure-7, with due interchange of
the posts among the five categories.
6. 5. However, it is observed that petitioner will not
claim Seniority over his batchmates in the said
category after getting the benefit of appointment as
Page 12 of 13
// 13 //
against the post of OAS(Group-A) (JB) and he will be
treated as a fresh entrant in the cadre with
necessary pay protection only.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 30 October, 2026/Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Nov-2026 19:23:33
Page 13 of 13