Odisha HC Revives 2021 Selection For 2 Senior Treatment Supervisor Posts, Orders Results After Cancellation Gave No Reason

In brief

The question

Whether the cancellation of the 2021 STS recruitment by the corrigendum dated 20 July 2022 could be sustained when the corrigendum stated no reasons and the authority later sought to justify it by reference to revised guidelines and the passage of time.

The court held

The Court quashed the 20 July 2022 corrigendum insofar as it cancelled recruitment to the STS post.

It also directed

It directed Opposite Party No. 2 to publish the result of the 26 July 2021 selection and, if the petitioner qualified, take consequential steps to appoint him, completing the exercise within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

After complying with that direction, the authority may take appropriate steps to fill any remaining vacancy under the 5 September 2023 advertisement.

The writ petition and interim applications were disposed of.

01Facts

Opposite Party No. 2 advertised various posts, including two posts of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS), on 26 July 2021.

pp. 2–3, 8–9

The petitioner participated in the selection for STS; recruitment to the other advertised posts proceeded, but the STS recruitment was cancelled by corrigendum dated 20 July 2022.

pp. 2–3, 8–9

A fresh advertisement for STS was issued on 5 September 2023.

p. 9

During the writ proceedings, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in that later selection, while directing that the posts not be filled without leave of Court.

p. 9

The authority subsequently relied on revised guidelines issued on 27 June 2022 and the lapse of more than a year since the earlier advertisement to justify cancellation, although those reasons were not stated in the corrigendum itself.

pp. 6–7, 9–10

The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation and have the result of the 2021 STS selection published.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the cancellation of the 2021 STS recruitment by the corrigendum dated 20 July 2022 could be sustained when the corrigendum stated no reasons and the authority later sought to justify it by reference to revised guidelines and the passage of time.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 11.2–11.4

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction that the result of the 2021 STS selection be published and, if he qualified, that consequential appointment action be taken.

p. 11 · ¶ 11.5

03Law Applied

The writ jurisdiction was invoked under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 1

Applying Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the Court reaffirmed that an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order when made; its validity cannot be supported by fresh reasons later supplied by affidavit or otherwise.

p. 10 · ¶ 11.2

Public orders are to be construed objectively by reference to their language and cannot be supplemented by an officer’s subsequent explanation.

p. 10 · ¶ 11.2

04Reasoning

The corrigendum cancelling the STS recruitment gave no reasons, while the revised guidelines and the elapsed period were relied on only in the authority’s later affidavits and submissions. Under Mohinder Singh Gill, those later explanations could not cure the absence of reasons in the impugned order.

p. 10 · ¶ 11.2

The Court also noted that the original advertisement predated the revised guidelines and that the other posts advertised in the same process had been filled, but the STS recruitment alone was cancelled.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 11.3–11.4

It therefore held the cancellation legally unsustainable and directed completion of the original selection process.