2003 Supp 6 SCR 8 The following Order of the Court was delivered On 17.6.1996 the Orissa Public Service Commission for short the Commission issued an advertisement No.
5 of 1996 97, inviting application in the prescribed form for 25 posts of Temporary Munsif Emergency Recruitment in Class II of Orissa Judicial Service.
The appellants, therefore, were necessary parties.
Several writ applications were filed by Ajaya Kumar Baral, Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan, Krushna Chandra Jena, Bijaya Kumar Patra and Govinda Chandra Parida and Anr.
The appellants herein were number party to the writ applications.
It is number disputed that the appellants herein were number parties to the writ petition.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the High Court, offers of appointment were issued by the State Government in terms of the list prepared by the High Court.
The names of the appellants, admittedly, found place therein.
A written examination was held by the Commission and in terms thereof, a list of the successful candidates was prepared.
filed petitions bearing O.J.C. Nos.
The name of Khetrabasi Biswal also found place therein.
Thereafter the select list has been prepared on the basis of merit, which companytained 39 names.
In this list of the State Government, names of certain persons, who were in merit list did number find place.
13687 of 1997, which it still pending.
One of such situated person filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Orissa High Court, challenging the list prepared by the State Government.
The names of the appellants, namely, Dipali Chand and Govinda Chandra Parida and another were omitted.
5986 and 5987 of 1998 also filed a Writ Petition No.
It is also number in dispute that one of the appellants, namely, Dipali Chand in Civil Appeal Nos.
The State Government, however, on receiving the said list, prepared another list.
The selectees were later on interviewed by the Commission and in the said proceeding a sitting Judge of the High Court acted as an expert.
The State Government after receiving the list from the Commission, prepared another list out of the list prepared by the Commission.
The High Court, while preparing its own list, did number think it fit to issue numberices to other candidates like the appellants herein, who had suffered prejudice by reason of the directions issued by the High Court.
It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.
The said list was sent to the State Government for its approval.
The appellants herein and the respondents along with the others submitted an application before the Commission.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court purporting to interpret the service rules prepared the list of the candidates, who should have been selected.
14,380 of 1996, 5566, 6040, 6041 and 6088 of 1997 respectively.
