A selected candidate’s regular appointment must be backdated when contractual appointment was unwarranted.

The petitioner applied pursuant to an Odisha Staff Selection Commission advertisement for Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO) posts and was placed first on the merit list.

Although the advertisement described the posts as regular, the State’s requisition reportedly provided for eight regular posts and 101 contractual posts.

While an application challenging the advertisement was pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner was appointed on contract from 28 February 2004.

The challenge was dismissed in 2006, and the petitioner was appointed regularly on 21 December 2006 following proceedings before the Tribunal.

His representation seeking regular appointment from 28 February 2004 was rejected on 22 July 2021; the rejection also treated him as covered by the New Pension Scheme rather than the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

He sought to have his regular appointment antedated to his contractual appointment date

1. Whether the petitioner, ranked first in the selection process, was entitled to regular appointment from 28 February 2004, notwithstanding the State’s position that only eight posts had been requisitioned for regular appointment

2. Whether the order rejecting his request to antedate his regular appointment was sustainable

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which it reviewed the legality of the impugned administrative decision.

It also considered the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, as amended with effect from 1 January 2005, in connection with the petitioner’s claim to pension coverage.

The judgment did not rely on any cited precedent or articulate a separate statutory test; its determination rested on the selection record, the petitioner’s first position in the merit list, the status of the challenge to the advertisement, and the Finance Department’s opinion

The Court noted that the petitioner ranked first and that the advertisement had not been set aside, despite the discrepancy between its terms and the requisition for eight regular and 101 contractual posts.

It further observed that the challenge to the advertisement was ultimately dismissed and that the interim order had been vacated or modified before the petitioner’s appointment in February 2004.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner should have been appointed regularly from that date.

It also considered the Finance Department’s opinion supportive of extending the benefit, and found the grounds stated in the 2021 rejection unsustainable

The period from 28 February 2004 to 21 December 2006 was to be regularised on a notional basis, with service and financial benefits as due and admissible.

The State was directed to complete the exercise within four months of receiving the judgment; the writ petition was disposed of.