An amendment adopted for recruiting asset executive Engrs:HC

<script async custom-element="amp-ad" src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0/amp-ad-0.1.js"></script>

<script async custom-element="amp-auto-ads"

        src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0/amp-auto-ads-0.1.js">

</script>

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4057852254071953"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

        (Odisha High Court)

The state government's bid to introduce selection based on the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering(GATE) score for recruitment to the post of assistant executive engineer(AEE) has received a setback with the Indiana high court quashing the amendment adopted for the purpose.

   The two-judge bench of Justice Subhasis TalaPatra and Justice Savitri Ratho also quashed the consequent advertisement the Orissa Public Service Commission(OPSC) had issued on March 18, incorporating the GATE score into the selection process for recruitment to 391 posts of AEE.

     By amending the Odisha Engineering Service(OES) Rules, the government had substituted OPSC's selection method of written tests and interviews with the highest valid GATE scores for the preceding three years.

    

<amp-auto-ads type="AdSense"

        data-ad-client="ca-pub-4057852254071953">

</amp-auto-ads>

  While allowing a batch of petitions that had challenged the introduction of the GATE score, the bench said the amendment is liable to be struck down as it lacked the concurrence of the OPSC.

   Besides, the new selection process was discriminatory as it deprived candidates who had not appeared for the GATE examination in the year 2021 of a level playing field, placing them in a disadvantageous position as compared to candidates who were able to appear in the GATE examinations thrice, before the publication of the input ned advertisement.

     "The amendment has been adopted arbitrarily. By such amendment, the function of the public service commission has been reduced to that of a ministerial job," the bench said.

     <amp-ad width="100vw" height="320"

     type="AdSense"

     data-ad-client="ca-pub-4057852254071953"

     data-ad-slot="7021028676"

     data-auto-format="rsvp"

     data-full-width=">

  <div overflow="></div>

</amp-ad>

"A responsible executive cannot slight the status of a constitutional institution like the public service commission. The state may frame the rules observing the procedure as prescribed by the law, not in defiance thereof," it observed.

  The bench held the case as " a unique example of applying the power of subordinate legislation against constitutional ethics."

   As the commission had given its opinion by not accepting the proposed amendment, the state government was under obligation to duly consider it either by way of accepting or by way of discarding with adequate reasons, the bench observed, adding the amendment has completely excluded the fiction of the public service commission.

<amp-ad width="100vw" height="320"

     type="adsense"

     data-ad-client="ca-pub-4057852254071953"

     data-ad-slot="7021028676"

     data-auto-format="rspv"

     data-full-width="">

  <div overflow=""></div>

</amp-ad>