The 2017 Rules cannot retrospectively invalidate a resident certificate valid under the 1984 Rules.

The petitioner applied for the post of Secretary of Ambajhari Service Cooperative Society Limited pursuant to the Society’s advertisement dated 28 February 2014.

Along with her application, she submitted a Resident/Nativity Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Boudh on 7 July 2012 in Misc. Certificate Case No. 2098/2012.

The Selection Committee rejected her candidature on 27 April 2017 on the ground that the Resident Certificate was invalid, and the post was subsequently offered to Opposite Party No. 6, allegedly despite the petitioner securing higher marks.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court had directed that the appointment made to the post would remain subject to the result of the petition.

Whether the petitioner’s Resident Certificate issued on 7 July 2012 could be treated as invalid for the purpose of a selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 28 February 2014, on the basis of Rule 6(5) of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2017.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by the Selection Committee on 27 April 2017 was legally sustainable.

Whether Opposite Party No. 6 was entitled to protection of her appointment on the basis of having continued in service, relying on Bikash Mahalik v. State of Odisha.

The Court applied the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, finding that they contained no provision prescribing an expiry period for a Resident Certificate.

Rule 6(5) of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2017, provides that a resident, income, and solvency certificate remains valid for one year from its date of issue.

The Court held that the 2017 Rules could not retrospectively govern a selection process initiated in 2014.

The Court also considered the principles discussed in Bikash Mahalik v. State of Odisha & Others, concerning protection of an appointee who continued in service without fault.

The Court determined the validity of the Resident Certificate with reference to the rules applicable when the selection process was initiated.

Since the advertisement was issued in 2014, the 1984 Rules governed the petitioner’s application. Those Rules did not stipulate that a Resident Certificate would lapse after a specified period; therefore, the Selection Committee could not invalidate the petitioner’s 2012 certificate by applying the one-year validity requirement introduced under Rule 6(5) of the 2017 Rules.

Consequently, the sole ground on which the petitioner’s candidature was rejected was legally unsustainable.

The Court further declined to protect Opposite Party No. 6’s appointment under Bikash Mahalik, because the appointment had expressly been made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

Opposite Party No. 5 was directed to accept the Resident Certificate issued on 7 July 2012, as well as the subsequently issued certificate dated 20 May 2017, and to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s candidature within six weeks from receipt of the judgment.

If the petitioner was otherwise eligible, the Society was directed to take appropriate steps regarding her appointment.

The Court did not itself direct her appointment and declined to protect Opposite Party No. 6’s interest on the basis of her continuance in service.