Orissa High Court
WP(C)/7315/2021 on 17 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.7315 of 2021
02. 17.03.2021 1. Heard Mr. A. P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. M. S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation of an upper
age limit of 32 years, as on 1st August 2021, for being
eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of
Assistant Section Officer (ASO) in Group-B in this Court
for which an advertisement was issued on 17th February,
2021.
3. The contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, based on a judgment dated 19th July 2017, of
this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.8516 of 2015 (State of
Odisha v. Sudipta Kumar Mohanty), is that after 2014,
there is no selection process initiated for the post of ASO.
If after gap of nearly 7 years, an advertisement is issued, it
will have to account for a large number of candidates who
may have had such opportunity, had the advertisement
been issued regularly since 2014. Without prejudice to this
argument, he contends that even if such advertisement had
been issued in 2019, a person like the present Petitioner,
who is 33 years old, would not have been deprived of an
opportunity and, therefore, this Court should interfere and
extend the upper age limit to any reasonable age so as to
allow the Petitioner to apply for the post of ASO.
4. Mr. Bose has drawn attention of the Court towards Rule-
12 of The High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules) which
talks about determination of vacancy, recruiting agency,
etc. To begin with the Court notes that the decision in
Sudipta Kumar Mohanty (supra) was in a petition
challenging the order dated 19th December 2014 passed by
the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack (OAT) in O.A. No.4048(C) of 2012. The OAT
held that the candidates who were eligible during the year
1998 to 2010, in respect of vacancies of Junior Assistants
(JA) /Assistant Sector Officers (ASO) in the Government
of Odisha, which found in those years, would be eligible to
take the examination pursuant to advertisement dated 6th
October, 2010, irrespective of their being overaged on the
basis of the qualifying age fixed in the advertisement. This
was because governing the Odisha Ministerial Service
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Jr.
Assistants in the Offices of the Departments of Secretariat)
Rules, 1951, made it mandatory for the State of Odisha to
fill up such posts once in every year. With this mandatory
requirement not being complied with, naturally there was a
legitimate expectation in such candidates, who were
deprived of applying for those posts in those years, to
expect an increased cut-off age when ultimately an
advertisement was issued in 2010.
5. However, as far as the present case is concerned,
nothing is shown to the Court, which mandates the High
Court to issue such advertisement every year for filling up
of the vacancies. While Rule-12 (1) of the 2019 Rules
requires the vacancy position in each post to be determined
keeping in view the anticipated vacancies up to 31st August
of that year, it does not mandatorily require a recruitment
to be held every year.
6. Be that as it may, considering that these Rules have been
notified on 21st October 2019, the issuance of the
advertisement within two years thereafter does not make
the fixing of the maximum qualifying age of 32 years
arbitrary.
7. The acceptance of submission of the Petitioner, carried
to its logical conclusion, would render any maximum age
arbitrary as it is bound to adversely affect those not
fulfilling that requirement. This is inevitable when it
comes to public employment where a large number of
persons are expecting to apply for a limited number of
vacancies.
8. In the above background, the fixing of 32 years as the
maximum age of applying for the post of ASO, does not
appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. This Court would
also like to note that the advertisement provides for age
relaxation for certain select categories of candidates like
SC, ST, disabled and so on.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not
persuaded to accept the plea of the Petitioner that the
maximum cut-off age of 32 years for the post of ASO is
arbitrary and unreasonable and requires to be interfered
with.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
( Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray )
M. Panda Judge
