Orissa High Court
Santosh Adhikari vs State Of Odisha And Another ... Opposite ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.39860 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-----------
Santosh Adhikari ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha and another ... Opposite parties
For Petitioner ... M/s. K.P. Mishra, S. Rath,
L.P. Dwivedi & A. Mishra.
For Opposite Parties ... Mr. N.K. Praharaj
Additional Government Advocate
(For O.P. No.1)
M/s. P.K. Mohanty, P. Mohanty,
P.K. Nayak, P.K. Pasayat &
S.N. Dash.
(For O.P. No.2)
--------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Date of hearing : 20.02.2024 : Date of judgment : 01.03.2024
A.K. Mohapatra, J. The present writ petition has been filed
with a prayer for a direction to the State-Opposite Parties to
grant age relaxation to the Petitioner in terms of Odisha Civil
// 2 //
Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules,
2022 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition for appointment
to the post of Assistant Director (Law) and for a declaration
that the Gazette Notification dated 15.01.2022 under
Annexure-11 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has also prayed for a further direction to the
Opposite Parties to consider the candidature of the Petitioner
for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Law) in
Home Department by relaxing the upper age limit of Ex-
servicemen candidates as recommended by the Parliamentary
Standing Committee of Defence and to treat the Petitioner at
par with inservice Government servant candidates in respect
of whom the upper age limit has been fixed at 45 years in the
2017 Rules.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in gist, is that on
18.11.2021, the Odisha Public Service Commission (in short
'OPSC')-Opposite Party No.2 published an advertisement for
recruitment to the post of Assistant Director (Law). The
// 3 //
Petitioner, who is an Ex-servicemen, is eligible in all respect
to appear in the aforesaid examination save an obstacle in the
shape of the upper limit criteria fixed in the advertisement.
Further, it appears that by the time of submission of
candidature, the upper age limit for
Ex-servicemen candidate was fixed at 40 years, however, the
Petitioner was by then over aged by one year and six months.
Therefore, initially the candidature of the Petitioner was not
accepted and he was not allowed to fill-up the form for being
considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Director
(Law).
3. Being aggrieved by such fixation of upper age limit, the
Petitioner approached the Chief Secretary, Government of
Odisha by filing a representation on 14.12.2021 with a prayer
to increase the upper age limit from 40 years to 45 years for
ex-servicemen category at par with the inservice Government
employees or at least for grant of the relaxation as has been
fixed in Fixation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2022. Since the
// 4 //
representation of the Petitioner was not considered by the
Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, the Petitioner was
constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.39860 of 2021 on 17.12.2021. While the said writ
application was pending before this Court, the Government of
Odisha vide Gazette Notification No.117 amended the
Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules,
1998 by the amending Act of the year 2022 thereby
increasing the upper age limit from 32 years to 38 years for
all General Category candidates except the reserved category
in respect of the advertisement made during the calendar
years 2021, 2022 and 2023.
4. The aforesaid amending rule of the year 2022 which
was published vide Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2022
was further modified by another Gazette Notification No.126
dated 15.01.2022. Pursuant to the aforesaid modification vide
Gazette Notification dated 15.01.2022, the relaxation of
upper age limit which was initially granted vide Gazette
// 5 //
Notification dated 11.01.2022 in respect of the Calendar
years 2021, 2022 and 2023 was restricted to those cases
where pursuant to the advertisement the last date of
submission of application was not over. So far the present
Petitioner is concerned, it is seen that he was interested to
apply pursuant to the advertisement published on 18.11.2021
under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Such advertisement
provides that the last date of submission of online application
form is 31.12.2021 for recruitment to the post of 80 posts of
Assistant Director (Law) in Group-B of Odisha Secretariat
Service under Home Department. Further, on a careful
scrutiny of the advertisement under Annexure-1 reveals that
out of a total number of 80 posts, 2 posts have been reserved
for Ex-Servicemen Category including one post for Women.
The Petitioner being an Ex-Serviceman was interested in
getting appointment to the said post of Assistant Director
(Law) reserved for Ex-Servicemen category. However, the
// 6 //
Petitioner was not permitted to apply for the said post on the
ground that he has become over aged.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid fixation of upper age
limit and deprivation of opportunity to apply for such post
pursuant to Annexure-1, the Petitioner approached this Court
by filing the present writ petition. A coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 22.12.2021 issued notice to the
Opposite Parties and directed to serve copy of the writ
petition on the learned State Counsel. On 16.03.2022, this
Court passed an interim order in I.A. No.861 of 2022 thereby
permitting the Petitioner to participate in the recruitment
process by directing the Opposite Parties to accept the
application form of the Petitioner through offline mode and
allow him to appear in the examination. However, such
interim order was subject to a condition that the result of such
examination in respect of the Petitioner shall not be published
without leave of this Court. Pursuant to such interim order
passed by this Court on 16.03.2022, the Petitioner submitted
// 7 //
his application form through offline mode which was
accepted by the OPSC. The OPSC also allowed the Petitioner
to participate in the recruitment process by appearing in the
written examination. It also appears that the Petitioner was
allowed to appear in the viva voce test. However, in
obedience to order dated 16.03.2022, the Opposite Parties
have not published the result of the Petitioner and the same
has been kept in a sealed covered.
6. Heard Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner; Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties; and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior
Counsel, along with Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, appearing for the
Opposite Party No.2-OPSC. Perused the pleadings as well as
the documents annexed thereto.
7. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner submitted that the Cadre of Assistant Director
in Law was created by virtue of the rules of the year 2017,
// 8 //
i.e. Odisha State Legal Service (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 which was notified in the
Gazette on 11th January, 2017. Further, taking this Court
through the rules of the year 2016, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Rule-9 lays down
the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Director (Law). He further contended that while fixing the
age limit, the rule provides that the candidate must not be
below 23 years and above 35 years of age. However,
relaxation has been granted to the category of candidates as
provided under Rule-6 of 2016 Rules. So far Ex-Servicemen
like the Petitioner are concerned, they are governed under
Rule-6(b) and reservation for such category is to be provided
as per the act, rules, order or instruction issued on this behalf
by the Government from time to time.
8. In course of his argument, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner emphatically submitted
that the Ex-servicemen like the Petitioner have been grossly
// 9 //
discriminated. To substantiate such allegation, learned Senior
counsel for the Petitioner referred to Rule-9 which provides
that the upper age limit in respect of inservice Government
candidates has been fixed at 45 years whereas in the case of
the present Petitioner, who is an Ex-Serviceman, the upper
age limit shall be 35 years + 5 years relaxation granted under
the rules of the year 1986. Therefore, the maximum age limit,
so far the present Petitioner is concerned, is 40 years.
Referring to the aforesaid disparity, learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that the same is highly
unreasonable and that the same will not pass the test under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel further contended
that in respect of inservice Government employees, the
Government has provided 45 years. However, the Petitioner,
who has served the nation by serving in the Indian Air Force,
has been given a lesser advantage under the rules framed by
the State-Government. In course of his argument, learned
// 10 //
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further referred to the
recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee
of Defence, it was submitted that the Parliamentary Standing
Committee of Defence has recommended that the Ex-
Serviceman, who are interested in civil service are to be
given relaxation of their entire period of service rendered in
Indian Air Force to be deducted from total age of the
Petitioner while considering the eligibility in terms of the
Rules, 2017.
10. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the
constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kalpana Meheta v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil)
No.921 of 2013 decided on 5th April, 2017) with regard to the
legality and validity of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee report. By referring to the aforesaid judgments,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
// 11 //
that the Supreme Court has categorically held that such report
can be taken into consideration while deciding a case. Citing
the aforesaid S.C. Report, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that they should have been at least treated at par
with inservice Government employees.
11. In course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner also submitted that the Gazette
Notification of the Government dated 15.01.2022 is bad in
law inasmuch as a right was conferred by virtue of Gazette
Notification dated 11.01.2022 keeping in view the
COVID-19 pandemic situation and considering the fact that
recruitment tests were not conducted for several years.
Having granted such relaxation to all categories of candidates
and consequently restricting the same by issuing another
notification a few days thereafter, i.e. 15.01.2022 to the
extent that where the last date for submission of the
application pursuant to such the advertisement was over, the
candidates, who were interested in such posts advertised prior
// 12 //
to the date of the aforesaid Gazette Notification, will not be
eligible to get the benefit is an unreasonable classification,
therefore, the same would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
further contended that by virtue of Notification dated
15.01.2022, another class was created within the same class
without having any reasonable nexus with the object sought
to be achieved thereby. Therefore, the same would not be
protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and,
accordingly, such Notification dated 15.01.2022 be declared
arbitrary and discriminatory. He further submitted that such
benefit which was granted by virtue of Notification dated
11.01.2022 should have extended across all categories of
candidates in respect of Calendar Years 2021, 2022 and 2023.
The artificial distinction that has been drawn by virtue of the
Notification dated 15.01.2022 is unsustainable in law.
Moreover, the same is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.
// 13 //
13. With regard to grant of relaxation in upper age limit, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (Civil Appeal
No.2016 of 2022) and the judgment of this Court in Nagen
Bhoi & others v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023)
and Sujit Kumar Padhy v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C)
No.36126 of 2021). By referring to the aforesaid judgments,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court keeping
in view the fact that the recruitment tests were not conducted
during COVID-19 pandemic and there was a long gap
between the two recruitment tests, the candidates who have
become over aged by the time the advertisements were
issued, the recruitment test took place immediately after
COVID-19 were given age relaxation by virtue of the
aforesaid judgment. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
// 14 //
Supreme Court and this Court has also been given effect to
by the respective Governments.
14. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner keeping in view the proposition
of law laid down in the above noted judgments, prayed that
this Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to
consider grant of age relaxation to the Petitioner in the light
of the aforesaid judgments. Finally, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the rules
of year 2016, under which, the present recruitment is taking
place also provides for relaxation clause in the shape of
Clause-17. Further, referring to the aforesaid Rule-17,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
that the State Government is vested with power to relax any
of the provisions of the said rule wherever it feels expedient
so to do, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing to any
class or category of employees in the interest of the Public
Service in consultation with the Commission.
// 15 //
15. Additionally, by referring to aforesaid Rule-17, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner falls in an exclusive category, i.e. Ex-Servicemen,
who had spent several years in the service of the nation by
serving in the Indian Air Force. He also contended that the
rules of the year 1986 also provide relaxation and reservation
for such category of persons. In the present case, after
rendering his services in the Indian Air Force, the Petitioner
wants to come back to civil service. Therefore, the State is
under an obligation to accept the Petitioner by making
suitable provision to accommodate such type of persons, who
have served the nation through the Indian Air Force. He also
submitted that there exists a disparity by fixing the upper age
limit for inservice Government candidates. Further taking
into consideration the special category of the Petitioner and
keeping in view the relaxation granted by this Court as well
as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the State Government may be directed to
// 16 //
consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of relaxation
under Rule-17 of the 2016 Rules.
16. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the State-Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand,
contended that the State-Opposite Party No.1 has filed a
detailed counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, the State-
Opposite Party No.1 has categorically stated that the
Petitioner is simply aged barred. Therefore, his case could not
have been considered. Further, referring to the 2016 Rules,
particularly Rule-9, learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that the said Rule-9 provides for
eligibility criteria. Such eligibility criteria includes the age
limit of the candidates. Since the upper age limit has been
fixed at 35 years and by adding such age relaxation, the
Petitioner is entitled to get 5 years more, the upper age limit
of the Petitioner would be 40 years. However, the Petitioner
has crossed the upper age limit by one year and six months
// 17 //
and, therefore, his case could not have been considered
contrary to the provisions contained in the rule.
17. Learned Additional Government Advocate further
contended that the post of Assistant Director (Law) was
created in the year 2021 by virtue of Government
Notification dated 31.03.2021. Therefore, the contention of
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is
erroneous as the Petitioner has not suffered due to COVID-19
pandemic and that he has lost any opportunity to apply for the
post as the post was created only on 31.3.2021. Therefore, the
case of the Petitioner cannot be equated with the persons in
respect of whom the recruitment test could not take place for
several years due to COVID-19 pandemic related issues.
18. In course of his argument, learned Additional
Government Advocate further contended that judgments
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's
case. While elaborating such contention, learned Additional
// 18 //
Government Advocate submitted that the case laws that has
been relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner the main ground is that the Petitioner in those
cases did not get an opportunity to participate as no
recruitment test was held for the post in which they were
interested. In other words, the posts which were advertised
were not being filled up for the first time. However, the
recruitment tests which were being conducted after a long
gap of time because of the COVID-19 pandemic and due to
such long gap between the two recruitment tests persons
became over aged. To grant an opportunity to such type of
candidates, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has directed to grant age relaxation to such type of
candidates. However, such age relaxation is not applicable to
the case of the Petitioner.
19. He further contended that the Opposite Parties have not
committed any illegality by not accepting the application of
the Petitioner for recruitment to the post of Assistant Director
// 19 //
(Law). It was also submitted by him that pursuant to the
interim order passed by this Court, the Petitioner was allowed
to participate in the recruitment test and that the result of such
test has been kept in a sealed cover as directed by this Court
on 16.03.2022. In such view of the matter, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is
devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be
dismissed.
20. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Opposite Party No.2-OPSC referring to the counter
affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2-OPSC submitted
that the OPSC had published the advertisement pursuant to
the rules and as per the requisition of the State Government.
He further referred to the Rules of the year 2016 and
submitted that in view of the provisions contained in such
Rules, the OPSC has not committed any illegality or mistake
in advertisement under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He
also contended that the Petitioner was allowed to participate
// 20 //
pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and his
result has been kept in a sealed cover. In view of the
aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
OPSC submitted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable against the OPSC.
21. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1 and the learned
Senior Counsel papering for the Opposite Party No.2-OPSC
and on due examination of their submissions and pleadings of
the respective parties, this Court observes that there exists no
dispute with regard to the factual position of the present case.
The only issue that is to be determined in the present writ
petition is with regard to age relaxation that has been claimed
by the Petitioner thereby to make the Petitioner eligible to
participate in the recruitment test for appointment to the post
of Assistant Director (Law)?
// 21 //
22. To determine the aforesaid issue, this Court examined
the Rules of the year 1986 and on perusal of Rule-9, it
appears that the same lays down the eligibility criteria. Such
eligibility criteria provides that the candidate must be a
Bachelor in Law from a recognized University and must be
well conversant in Computer Application and the candidate
must not be below 23 years and above 35 years of age.
However, in case of inservice Government employees, the
upper age limit has been fixed at 45 years. So far the
candidates who belong to reserved category, for them, special
provision has been made under Rule-6. Rule-6(b) provides
that appropriate Government by an act, rule or order, or
instruction provide for reservation from time to time in
respect of such special category of candidates including the
Ex-Servicemen.
23. So far the Ex-servicemen candidates are concerned, this
Court observes that the upper age limit in respect of such
candidates is 40 years, i.e. 35 years of upper age limit + 5
// 22 //
years of relaxation granted to such category of person by
virtue of 1986 Rules. The rules of the years 1986 provides for
relaxation to Ex-Serviceman. Under Rule-5(1) relaxation has
been provided to Class-III and Class-IV employees and under
Rule-5(2) the flat relaxation upto maximum 5 years has been
provided in respect of Class-I and Class-II posts. The
Petitioner coming under the Ex-Servicemen category and
having applied for post of Assistant Director shall come
under Rule-5(2) of the 1986 Rules. Therefore, the upper age
limit, according to the learned counsel for the Opposite
Parties would be 40, although the same is not accepted by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
24. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner challenged
the fixation of upper age limit in respect of ex-serviceman
category on the ground that the same is not in conformity and
as per with the relaxation granted to the inservice
Government servants. Therefore, there is gross disparity and
the same would be hit by Article-14 and 16 of the
// 23 //
Constitution of India inasmuch as a category of persons, who
are serving in Government, have been given better relaxation
than the persons who were for a long time in defence services
of the country. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the
Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations. This
Court on a perusal of such recommendation found that the
Standing Committee of the Parliament has recommended that
the entire service period of such candidates shall be given age
relaxation, i.e. the period for which they have served in the
defence service is to be deducted from their total age while
considering their eligibility against a civil post. This Court
found a lot of force in such arguments advanced by learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. Therefore, the same is
required to be considered by the Government.
25. Moreover, this Court observes that Rule-17 of the 2016
Rules provides that the Government in an appropriate case
may grant relaxation of the rules in respect of a class or
category of employees in the interest of public service in
// 24 //
consultation with the Commission. On a perusal of the
aforesaid Rule-17, this Court is of the view that it is well
within the authority of the Government to grant relaxation of
the rules to a certain class of category of persons in the
interest of public service. So far the Petitioner is concerned,
he belongs to the Ex-servicemen category. Further, taking
into consideration the fact that he has rendered many years of
service in Indian Air Force and thereby served the nation in
protecting the territory of this great country, it would be in
the interest of public service that a disciplined and dedicated
person like the petitioner should have been given an
opportunity to serve in the Civil Service and such a decision
would have been in the larger public interest. Further, there is
also no bar in law in granting such relaxation to a particular
category, i.e. Ex-Servicemen Category. Moreover, such
consideration would also be in public interest as nobody has
been selected in the Ex-Servicemen Category as informed by
counsels appearing for the respective parties.
// 25 //
26. While deciding the case of the present Petitioner, some
of the factors which weighed on the mind of this Court are,
(1) the Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and he has been given
age relaxation upto 40 years whereas the in-service
Government candidates have been given age relaxation upto
45 years, (2) no recruitment under the Sate Legal Services
Rules, 2016 took place in between 2017 to 2021, although the
rule provides that vacancies are required to be filled up every
year. The aforesaid proposition is well supported by a
judgment of this Court in State of Odisha & Anr. v. Sudpita
Kumar Mohanty & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.8516 of 2015), (3)
relaxation have been granted by this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases by relaxing the upper
age limit. Further, the Petitioner having approached this
Court prior to the Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2022 and
15.01.2022, a right accrued in his favour vide Gazette
Notification dated 11.01.2022. The same could not have been
taken away in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
// 26 //
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Yogendra
Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538. Further, the
classification done under the Notification dated 15.01.2022
does not appear to be in conformity under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India inasmuch as the benefits under the
Notification dated 11.01.2022 should have been made
applicable to the recruitment process which have not been
concluded by the time such notification was published. Such
classification would be hit by Article 14 as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners
Association v. The State of Manipur and Others, reported in
(2020) 14 SCC 625, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that there cannot be class within class in an
unreasonable manner thereby depriving the class within a
class of certain benefits. There has to be a classification
founded on some rational principle when similarly situated
class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.
// 27 //
27. Two grounds which touches the judicial conscience of
this Court in the context of the present case are the report of
the Parliamentary Standing Committee on defence
recommending grant of relaxation in upper age limit to Ex-
Servicemen candidate in the matter of recruitment to a civil
post and the disparity in the rule as well as in the
advertisement with regard to the age of in-service
Government candidates by fixing the same at 45 years
whereas in the case of Ex-servicemen candidates, the upper
age limit even after taking into consideration the relaxation
under the rule of the year 1986 would be 40 years. Since the
Petitioner was over aged by a year and six months by the
time the advertisement was published, had the relaxation
under Notification dated 11.01.2022 been granted then the
Petitioner would have been found eligible for such
appointment. The aforesaid two grounds compelled this
Court to direct the State-Opposite Party to reconsider their
decision with regard to the Petitioner, particularly keeping in
// 28 //
view the fact that not a single candidate was selected from
Ex-servicemen category. Thus, such a rigid condition in
fixing the upper age limit for Ex-servicemen category would
entirely defeat the purpose for which the reservation is
provided for such category of candidates.
28. In view of the analysis of factual position as well as the
law, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the
Petitioner needs to be reconsidered by the Government
keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner belongs to Ex-
Servicemen Category and two posts, which were reserved for
such category, have not been filled up and that the State
Government in exercise of power under Rule-17 of 2016
Rules is competent to grant such relaxation to a particular
class of category of persons in the interest of public service.
29. Therefore, this Court, while disposing the writ petition,
directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the
Petitioner afresh keeping in view the observations made
herein above for grant of age relaxation in upper age under
// 29 //
Rule-17 of the 2016 Rules within a period of six weeks from
the date of communication of this judgment.
30. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the
Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to keep in mind that the
Petitioner is an Ex-Servicemen who has served the nation for
several years, i.e. through the Indian Air Force and,
accordingly, a decision be taken in the larger interest of a
particular category of persons. The final decision so taken by
the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioner.
Further, it is directed that in the event the Opposite Party
No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to
such relaxation, then the result of such recruitment in respect
of the Petitioner, which was kept in a sealed cover, shall be
opened and thereafter necessary follow up steps be taken by
the Opposite Parties pursuant to the advertisement under
Annexure-1 to the writ petition within a period of four weeks
from the date of taking such decision.
// 30 //
31. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 1st March, 2024/Debasis Aech, Secretary
