Orissa High Court
Sri Ranjit Kumar Meher vs State Of Odisha And Others on 16 April, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.245 of 2025
Sri Ranjit Kumar Meher .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. Sujata Jena, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. A. Dash, A.S.C.
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2025
03. 1. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking
appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector in terms of the
advertisement published on 30th July, 2021 despite having not
offered the candidature because of the disqualification. The single
Bench dismissed the writ petition solely on the basis of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated
13th February, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.2689 of 2017.
2. Previously, the appellant offered his candidature pursuant
to the advertisement made in the year 2004 for filling up the
identical posts, but was not favourably considered by the authority.
The approach to this Court could not yield favourable result and
ultimately, the appellant filed the special leave petition before the
Supreme Court and after the leave having granted, the said Civil
Appeal No.2689 of 2017 was registered. Undisputedly, the Civil
Appeal was ultimately dismissed by the apex Court on 13th
February, 2017 with the categorical finding that the appellant,
admittedly, does not possess the qualification as prescribed under
the Rules.
3. The counsel for the appellant fervently submits that the
appellant possesses all the eligible qualifications required for the
said post, but because of the age bar, he could not offer his
candidature. It is further submitted that the findings returned in the
judgment dated 13th February, 2017 by the Supreme Court is
factually incorrect and, therefore, no credence should be given
thereto.
4. It is undeniable that the appellant has crossed the age limit
set forth in the advertisement for filling up the said post in terms of
the provisions contained in Odisha Non-Gazetted Veterinary
Technical Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services)
Rules, 1983 as amended from time to time and lastly in the year
1997.
5. We invited the attention of the counsel for the appellant to
place before us any provision under the said Rules which confers
power upon the authority to relax the age for the purpose of
recruitment to the aforesaid post. It is fairly submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that such statutory Rules does not contain
any such powers, but she invited the attention of the Court to an
advertisement published for the said post in the year 2004 wherein
the power to relax the age bar was duly mentioned. According to
the counsel for the appellant, if such power was reserved in an
earlier advertisement, there is no justification that such power
cannot be exercised by the authority in a subsequent advertisement.
6. We are unable to accept such proposition for the simple
reason that the recruitment process is undertaken by a statutory
authority on the basis of the Rules framed in this regard. The
authorities cannot act beyond the circumference of the provisions
of the statute nor should be permitted to transgress its peripheral.
The authority must act within the precinct of the statutory
provisions and cannot travel beyond it. At times, the authority may
indicate the relaxation of certain conditions provided the
provisions in the statutory Rules do not expressly forbid the same.
If the provision contained in the statutory Rules forbears the
authority to go beyond the scope thereof, even if such power is
assumed, the same is contrary to law and, therefore, the authority
shall not be permitted to take recourse thereto. The mistake
committed at one point of time shall not be permitted to be
committed perpetually nor the writ Court should issue a writ of
mandamus upon the authority to commit the mistake or to act
contrary to law.
7. In absence of any express powers conferred in the statutory
Rules, the authority cannot assume such power and, therefore, we
do not find any justification in the stand of the appellant that there
is no fetter on the part of the authority to relax the age barriers.
Even the advertisement for filling up the said posts published in
the year 2021 does not contain any such stipulation that the power
is reserved upon the authority to relax the age bar and, therefore, in
absence thereof, the participant or a prospective participant cannot
compel the authorities to do a thing not contemplated in the
advertisement.
8. So far as the second point is concerned, we do not feel that
it needs any further discussion for the simple reason that in a
judgment dated 13th February, 2017, the apex Court unequivocally
observed that the appellant does not possess the qualification as
prescribed under the Rules and, therefore, even for arguments sake,
the contention of the appellant is accepted that the authority can
relax the age barriers, yet he cannot succeed having not acquired
the eligible qualification prescribed under the Rules.
9. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that such
observation is factually incorrect cannot be looked into as every
observations made by the apex Court on facts is binding on the
litigant in all the subsequent litigations nor the High Court or the
courts at the District level can take a contrary view.
10. In the event, the factual error is perceived in the judgment
and/or the order passed by the Court, the remedy of such litigant is
to approach the same Court inviting the attention of the learned
Judges in that regard before such event fades from the memory
(see State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivash Nayak, AIR
1982 Supreme Court 1249).
11. The observation made by the apex Court is sacrosanct so
far as the facts are concerned unless the same is reviewed and/or
modified by the same Court. It is not open to the High Court or the
District Courts to take a contrary view in this regard. Furthermore,
the apex Court expressly observed that there cannot be any
appointment in violation of the Rules which would also be
considered in a pragmatic manner to mean that if the Rule is silent
on the exercise of power by the authorities to relax any of the
conditions of the recruitment, the authorities cannot usurp such
powers.
12. From whatever angle we look at, do not find the ultimate
decision taken by the single Bench to be infirm and/or illegal.
13. The appeal is thus dismissed. No costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Guin/PA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2025 18:40:49
