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 itFor 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 ...

Orissa High Court Refuses Interim Relief In Plea Against April 1 Cut-Off Date To Calculate 3-Yrs Practice For Judicial Services Exam

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Orissa High Court Refuses Interim Relief In Plea Against April 1 Cut-Off Date To Calculate 3-Yrs Practice For Judicial Services Exam

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers