A suitability committee cannot devise substantive absorption criteria absent authorization in the governing rules.

The Petitioners were appointed as Court Managers pursuant to the Odisha Government’s 2011 resolution creating 32 contractual posts under the 13th Finance Commission scheme. They joined in 2012 after undergoing a selection process and training, initially receiving consolidated remuneration of ₹45,000 per month, later enhanced to ₹55,000. Their contractual engagements were repeatedly extended beyond the expiry of the Finance Commission scheme, and the High Court recommended their continuance and regularisation

Following the Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the State framed the Odisha Senior Court Manager and Court Manager of the High Court and District Courts (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020. Rule 6 permitted absorption of existing contractual Court Managers who had completed six years of service, subject to continued utility and passing a suitability test conducted by a Committee constituted by the Chief Justice

In August 2022, the Committee conducted a 100-mark assessment comprising project writing, an office note, interview/personality test and performance reports. Eleven of the existing Court Managers were absorbed, while the remaining Petitioners were declared unsuccessful and disengaged with effect from 30 August 2022

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court’s final directions dated 16 May 2025 required suitability testing and regularisation of existing Court Managers in accordance with rules framed or approved by the respective High Courts and State Governments

1. Whether the Committee constituted under Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules had authority to independently devise the substantive structure, marking scheme, qualifying criteria and methodology of the suitability test

2. Whether the 100-mark assessment conducted in August 2022 constituted a legally valid “suitability test” under Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules and the Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges Association

3. Whether the consequential disengagement of the unsuccessful Petitioners on 30 August 2022 was legally sustainable, particularly when their contractual engagement had been extended up to 17 January 2023

4. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to challenge the suitability process despite having participated in it

5. Whether the challenges to the Level-9 pay fixation and the validity of Rules 3, 6, 12, 18 and 19 of the 2020 Rules required determination

Rule 6(1) of the Odisha 2020 Rules authorised consideration of existing Court Managers for absorption after six years of service, subject to continued utility and passing a suitability test conducted by a Committee constituted by the Chief Justice; however, it did not expressly empower the Committee to legislate the substantive contents, marks, weightage or qualifying standards of that test

The Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, particularly the orders dated 2 August 2018 and 16 May 2025, required existing Court Managers to be continued and regularised subject to a suitability test prescribed through rules framed or approved by the competent authorities, with the Assam Rules of 2018 serving as the model framework

The Court applied the principle that a Selection Committee cannot create substantive eligibility or qualifying criteria unless authorised by the governing rules, relying on Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India and Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa

It also relied on Ghan Sham Sunder v. State of Punjab, Shri Parvez Qadir v. Union of India and Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat for the principle that suitability must be objectively assessed by criteria rationally connected with the post and, in the case of long-serving incumbents, may be assessed with due regard to their past service and experience

The Court distinguished between conducting an assessment and creating the substantive norms governing that assessment. Rule 6 authorised the Committee to conduct a suitability assessment but did not authorise it to formulate a new 100-mark examination with component-wise weightage, minimum qualifying marks and a substantial 40-mark interview component

This conclusion was reinforced by Rule 16(4) of the same Rules, where the rule-making authority had expressly prescribed a detailed marking scheme for a suitability test relating to promotion; the absence of equivalent provisions in Rule 6 indicated that the Committee had not been delegated similar power

The Petitioners were not fresh applicants. They had already undergone a selection process, training and several years of service, during which their engagement had repeatedly been extended by the competent authorities. Accordingly, the Rule 6 exercise was intended to assess their continued utility, performance, competence and fitness for absorption—not to subject them to a wholesale re-selection process resembling direct recruitment under Rule 7

The August 2022 scheme, devised by the Committee itself and not embodied in rules approved by the High Court or State Government, therefore exceeded the Committee’s authority and was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s direction that the suitability test be provided in the governing rules

The Petitioners’ participation did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Their participation had occurred pursuant to the Court’s interim order expressly preserving their rights and contentions, and consent or acquiescence could not confer upon the Committee a power that Rule 6 did not grant

Since the disengagement orders were founded directly on the invalid suitability process, they could not independently survive. Further, the State had extended the Petitioners’ contractual tenure until 17 January 2023 or until the posts were filled on a regular basis, whichever was earlier. Their disengagement on 30 August 2022 was therefore premature even as a matter of contractual tenure, particularly because they were not given prior notice

The Court deliberately declined to decide the Petitioners’ claims concerning pay fixation, parity, increments and the vires of Rules 3, 6, 12, 18 and 19, holding that those issues were not necessary for disposal of the challenge to the disengagement process

The notices dated 15 July and 11 August 2022, the results declared on 7 and 20 August 2022, and Office Order No.13488 dated 30 August 2022 disengaging the unsuccessful Petitioners were quashed qua the present Petitioners

The disengaged Petitioners were directed to be treated as continuing on their existing contractual terms up to 17 January 2023, and the State was directed to verify and pay the contractual remuneration that would have accrued during the unexpired contractual period, within eight weeks of production of the certified judgment

The dues of the deceased Petitioner, Dipti Prakash Mohanty, were directed to be paid to his legal heirs in accordance with law

The Court directed that any fresh suitability assessment must be undertaken only under modalities formulated by the competent rule-making authority and duly approved by the High Court, consistently with the Supreme Court’s directions.

The judgment did not grant automatic regularisation or absorption to the Petitioners, and it expressly left undisturbed the absorption already granted to the eleven successful candidates