Orissa High Court Refuses Interim Relief In Plea Against April 1 Cut-Off Date To Calculate 3-Yrs Practice For Judicial Services Exam
The Orissa High Court has refused to passed any interim relief in a plea challenging the Rule stipulating cut-off date to 1st April of the recruitment year to calculate three-years practice for advocates applying for Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) examination.
Denying any interim relief to the aggrieved petitioners, a Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed–
“The fixation of cut-off date is an executive prerogative and deference which is coming under the Policy decision. Unless it is palpably arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or mala-fidely motivated, judicial review for altering the same is restricted. It is established principle of law that while the recruiting authority has the power to set the criteria and the cut-off date at the beginning, they cannot change the eligibility rules or cut-off mid-way through the selection process unless the original rule explicitly allow(s) for it
For all the reasons stated above and by taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of all the parties, we are not inclined to pass any interim order at this stage. Hence the application is turned down".
The petitioners, who are primarily young Advocates currently having nearly three years of practice experience, knocked at the doors of the High Court challenging the notification dated 30.04.2026, issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), notifying 78 vacancy positions of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the recruitment year 2025.
They were primarily aggrieved by the stipulation of the date 01.04.2025 as the upper cut-off date for calculation of three-year practice of the prospective applicants. In other words, the notification issued by the OPSC required a candidate to possess minimum three years of legal practice as on 01.04.2025, notwithstanding the fact that the notification itself was issued only on 30.04.2026 and the recruitment process is yet to commence.
In the interim, they had sought direction to provisionally permit the petitioners to participate in the OJS exam pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.04.2026, subject to the result of the writ petition.
For context, the Supreme Court in May last year had restored the mandatory three-year practice rule as an eligibility criterion for recruitment to the entry level cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. Pursuant to the ruling of the Apex Court, the State in consultation with the High Court amended the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Judicial Service Rules, 2007, whereby Rule 18(1)(a) required a law graduate to have at least three years of practice on 1st April of the recruitment year.
Since the said rule had been put to constitutional challenge, which requires due consideration and hearings, the petitioners filed an interim application praying for an interim direction to the authorities to allow them to apply for the examination, subject to the final outcome of the case.
Senior Advocates Budhadev Routray and Milan Kanungo, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there is no such cut-off date prescription for reckoning eligibility in higher judicial service examinations. Therefore, they vehemently submitted that prescribing such cut-off date is arbitrary and illegal for OJS examination as well, especially when eligibility is usually reckoned from either the date of advertisement or the date of application.
Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, who was appearing for the State, interestingly supported the petitioner's cause. He submitted that even though the State has prescribed such date pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIJA case, but the top Court has not directed for setting any such cut-off date. He further pointed out that many States have already amended their respective Rules governing judicial service, however except States like Chhattisgarh and Kerala, no other State has prescribed any cut-off date.
Senior Advocate Gautam Mishra, appearing for the High Court, submitted that impugned rule has been framed by the State in consultation with the High Court. Therefore, he argued that the Advocate General ought not have questioned the cut-off date, going against the decision of the State itself. He further relying upon a host of precedents opposed granting any interim relief which may tantamount to giving final relief.
Senior Advocate PK Mohanty, appearing for the OPSC, highlighted technical and logistical challenges in case the Court by an interim measure allows the petitioners to apply for the examination. He also cautioned that granting any relief at this stage would open the floodgates and the “fence-sitters” would similarly demand their entry into the examination.
Upon hearing all the submissions, the Court prima facie found the cut-off date to be legal and justified. It observed –
“Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that such experience of three years shall be reckoned from the date of provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar Councils but no upper cut-off date was prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, under the Rules, the cut-off date has been fixed to effectively calculate the period of three years which would apply uniformly for all the candidates. The cut-off date of 1st April has been incorporated in the Rules taking into consideration the recruitment year which commence from 1st April of the year to the ending of 31st of March of the succeeding year.”
The Court underlined that fixation of cut-off date is an executive policy which cannot be interfered with unless it is found to be mala fide. While turning down the interim application, the Court held–
“The vacancy for which the advertisement has been made pertains to the year 2024-25. The recruitment process for the OJS-2020-23 was only completed on 01.08.2025. So, in the administrative side of this Court, determined the vacancy for both the year 2024-25 calculating till 31st March, 2026. Therefore, the total vacancy of 78 has been put to the advertisement for recruitment. In any case, the petitioners have not challenged the “year of recruitment”. Since the vacancy pertains to the year 2024-25, the petitioners in any case are not qualified to participate in the same, as they do not possess three years of experience in the year 2024.”
The case has been listed for final hearing on 06.07.2026. Notably, the OJS Preliminary Examination-2025, which was originally scheduled to be held on 05.07.2026, has been postponed until further orders pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court by an order dated 22.05.2026.
Case Title: Amrita Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 14928 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioners: Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General for the State; Mr. Gautam Mishra, Senior Advocate for the High Court; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate for the OPSC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 51