Orissa High Court
Amit Kumar Biswal & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3015 of 2025
Amit Kumar Biswal & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Pami Rath
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.3628 of 2025
Ratikant Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. P.C. Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.3703 of 2025
Situ Sahoo & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. A. Jamal, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
Page 1 of 20.
WP(C) No.3908 of 2025
Rakesh Kumar Mallick & ..... Petitioners
Ors.
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. S. Gumansingh,
Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.3956 of 2025
Papun Dash & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.M. Das, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.3957 of 2025
Biraja Prasad Bhoi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S. Swain, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
Page 2 of 20.
WP(C) No.4094 of 2025
Paresh Kumar Ray & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. L. Panigrahi, Sr.
Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.4279 of 2025
Jogeswar Maharana & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. P.C. Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.4512 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar Nayak & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. A. Jamal, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
Page 3 of 20.
WP(C) No.7667 of 2025
Pravat Mahali & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. L. Panigrahi, Sr.
Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.9810 of 2025
Ramachandra Tripathy ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S. Senapati, Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
WP(C) No.16417 of 2025
Priyadarshi Himadri Biswal & ..... Petitioners
Ors.
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Madan Mohan Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
Page 4 of 20.
WP(C) No.17793 of 2025
Santosh Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Debendra Pradhan
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.07.2025
Order No.
12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. The present batch of writ applications involves a
common set of facts and the prayer made in all these writ
applications are identical. Therefore, a common issue involved
in all these writ applications is required to be adjudicated by
this Court. Accordingly, all the writ applications were taken up
together and are being disposed of by the following common
order.
3. Heard Shri Budhadev Routray, Shri L. Pangari and Miss
Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsels representing the
Petitioners along with the counsels who are representing the
Petitioners in different writ applications listed today for
hearing. For the State-Opposite Parties, Shri Pitambar
Acharya, learned Advocate General assisted the Court in
deciding the present batch of writ applications. Perused the
writ applications as well as the documents annexed thereto.
4. The present batch of writ applications have been filed by
some of the candidates who have become age barred for being
considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2025. The
Petitioners in the batch of writ applications have made a
common prayer for a direction to the State-Opposite Parties to
grant age relaxation in the upper age limit up to 4 years in the
advertisement at Annexure-1 and for a direction to the
Opposite Party No.2-Odisha Police Recruitment Board,
Bhubaneswar to consider the case of the Petitioners for
appointment to the post advertised under Annexure-1 to the
writ applications.
5. The factual background, in a concise form, is that the
Petitioners are all qualified, unemployed youth and having an
aspiration to be recruited to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
by the Opposite Parties. The Petitioners came across the
advertisement dated 17.01.2025 at Annexure-1 to the writ
application. Such advertisement has been published under the
Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions
of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021 and Odisha Police
Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Sub-Inspectors (armed) Order, 2021 and Odisha Fire Service
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Group A
and Group B Officers) Rules, 2021. By virtue of the
advertisement dated 17.01.2025, the Opposite Parties
advertised 609 vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police, Sub-Inspector of Police (armed)-253 posts, Station
Officer (Fire Service)-47 posts, Assistant Jailor-24 posts.
6. The genesis of the dispute involved in the present batch
of writ applications lies in the condition fixed in the
advertisement i.e. with regard to fixation of upper age limit at
25 years as on 01.01.2024. Although, upper age limit has been
relaxed by 5 years for candidates belonging to SC/ST/ SEBC
and for horizontal reservation category meant for Women at 30
years. Since no relaxation has been granted to the candidate
with regard to the upper age limit as fixed in the advertisement
at Annexure-1, the Petitioners have approached this Court by
filing the present writ application.
7. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for some of the
Petitioners and counsels representing other Petitioners at the
outset contended that the last recruitment test for appointment
to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was conducted in the
year 2019. Thereafter, the recruitment rules were amended in
the year 2021. It was emphatically argued on behalf of the
Petitioners that no recruitment test for appointment to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police has taken place since 2019,
particularly after amendment of the relevant recruitment rules
in the year 2021. The Advertisement dated 17.01.2025 at
Annexure-1 was published on 17.01.2025 for the first time
after the last recruitment which was held in the year 2019. The
gap in the two recruitment test is the main plank of argument
on behalf of the Petitioners to seek for age relaxation in the
advertisement dated 17.01.2025 at Annexure-1.
8. In course of argument, learned Senior Counsels
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, drawing attention of this
Court to the judgment of this Court in Nagen Bhoi and Ors.
Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023 in a
batch of similar other applications disposed of vide judgment
dated 24.01.2023, submitted before this Court that an issue
identical to the present case was involved in the aforesaid
Nagen Bhoi's case (supra). In Nagen Bhoi's case (supra) this
Court, while disposing of the writ applications by a detailed
judgment had taken into consideration the contentions raised
by the Petitioners as well as the State-Opposite Parties. Finally,
this Court had directed in para-54 of the said judgment to the
Home Department, Govt. of Odisha to exercise power under
Order-17 of the Police Order, 2021 and to grant relaxation in
the upper age limit up to 4 years as an one-time measure by
taking into consideration the fact that no recruitment test could
take place owing to various factors including the Covid-19
pandemic. Accordingly, necessary consequential directions
were also issued to carry out the orders passed by this Court. It
was also contended that the judgment of this Court in Nagen
Bhoi's case (supra) was implemented by the State-Opposite
Parties and no appeal was preferred against the judgment of
this Court.
9. Learned Senior Counsels representing the Petitioners
further referred to a judgment of a Coordinate Bench in
Bisheshawar Biswal & Ors. vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
Bearing W.P.(C) No.26079 of 2024 and a batch of writ
applications disposed of vide a common judgment dated
05.12.2024. In the said batch of writ applications a common
prayer was also made by the Petitioners for grant of relaxation
in the upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Sepoys/
Constables in OSAP/IR/ SIR/SS Battalions of the Odisha
Police. Learned Coordinate Bench after hearing the counsels
for both sides and upon a careful analysis of various judgments
on the issue, allowed the writ applications by granting one-
time relaxation in the upper age limit up to 6 years. While
disposing of the abovenoted batch of writ applications, learned
Coordinate Bench in para-27 of the judgment has also
recommended that the Odisha Police State Selection Board and
the Odisha Police to take proactive steps to establish and
maintain a regular recruitment cycle aligned with emerging
vacancies.
10. As against the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench
in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra), the State Govt.
preferred a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.3321 of 2024. The
said writ appeal had been admitted vide order dated 31.01.2025
by a Division Bench of this Court. While admitting the Writ
Appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the then
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice has been pleased to stay the
operation of the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2024 till the
next date.
11. On perusal of the record it appears that the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (W.A.
No.3321 of 2024 was pending before a Division Bench). Since
the issue involved in the present writ applications is identical
to the one that was involved in Bisheshawar Biswal's case
(supra), this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 after hearing
learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioners as well as the
learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha passed order
dated 06.02.2025, wherein this Court observed that judicial
discipline and propriety demands that the matter be placed
before the Hon'ble Division Bench which is hearing the writ
appeal in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra) along with all
connected matters and the Registry was accordingly directed to
place the matters before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for
assigning the matter to the Division Bench hearing the writ
appeal in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra). Accordingly, the
present batch of writ applications were placed before the
Hon'ble Division Bench with the kind consent of the Hon'ble
Acting Chief Justice.
12. In course of hearing, learned Senior Counsels appearing
for the Petitioners produced a copy of judgment dated
25.03.2025 delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.
No.3321 of 2024 (State of Odisha & ors. vs. Bisheshawar
Biswal & ors.) and a batch of other writ appeals. On perusal of
the judgment dated 25.03.2025 it appears that the Hon'ble
Division Bench after a bare discussion of the factual as well as
the legal position and after recording the contentions raised by
the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, have
not given any specific finding to the issues that was involved in
the writ appeal. However, on perusal of para-19 and 20 of the
judgment in writ appeal of the State in Bisheshawar Biswal's
case (supra), this Court observes that at the time of final
hearing of the writ appeals, learned Advocate General for the
State of Odisha produced the instruction before the Hon'ble
Division Bench issued by the Special Secretary to Govt., Home
Department. Such instruction of the State has been quoted in
para-19 of the judgment.
13. On perusal of the instruction quoted in para-19 it appears
that in a high level meeting presided over by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister in presence of the learned Advocate General, Chief
Secretary, Odisha SCS Home Dept., DGP Odisha and
Chairman, State Selection Board, a decision was taken that as a
one-time benevolent measure in the larger interest of the
candidates who had applied for the post of Sepoys/ Constables
in Battalions pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.09.2024,
for appearing in the written examination will be given three
years upper age limit relaxation in respective categories of
candidates as prescribed in the Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service Fresh of Sepoys, Constables, Havildars
and ASI (Armed) Order, 2022. However, it was decided that
the same may not be treated as a precedent in the future. The
Hon'ble Division Bench has also recorded the satisfaction of
the respondent and their acceptance of the benevolent measure
of grant of 3 years age relaxation in the upper age limit.
Accordingly, the Respondent in the appeals conceded their
grounds of opposition to the impugned order being interfered
in the appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra) was set
aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
14. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners by
referring to the judgment in writ appeal in Bisheshawar
Biswal's case (supra) as well as the decision taken in the high
level meeting submitted that the factual backdrop of the case in
Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra) as well as in present batch
of writ applications are almost identical. Therefore, the State-
Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by not extending
such age relaxation in respect of the present Petitioners. It was
also contended that the present batch of writ applications were
placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench along with the writ
appeal in Bisheshawar Biswal's case (supra). Therefore, it
was contended that similar benefit of relaxation in upper age
limit up to 3 years should have been extended in favour of the
present Petitioners who are aspiring to participate in the
recruitment process for appointment to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police. As such, it was alleged that the State-
Opposite Parties have acted in a discriminatory manner and
they have violated the constitutional principle underlying in
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Per Contra, Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate
General representing the State-Opposite Parties argued that the
Petitioners have no legal right to claim upper age relaxation.
He further contended that the State being the employer has the
sole discretion and freedom to fix the eligibility criteria in
consonance with the relevant recruitment rules. Moreover, the
recruitment in the present case is to be carried strictly in terms
of the recruitment rules as well as the terms and conditions
prescribed in the advertisement dated 17.01.2025. The upper
age limit having been already fixed, the same cannot be altered
while the recruitment is going-on.
16. Learned Advocate General further argued that as a result
of the interim order passed by this Court and coupled with the
fact that a large number of writ applications are pending before
this Court, the State-Opposite Parties are unable to go ahead
with the recruitment process for appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police. As a result, the State-Opposite Parties
are unable to recruit Sub-Inspector of Police leading to a large
number of vacancies in such posts. He further contended that
such vacuum in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is seriously
affecting the law and order machinery in the State of Odisha.
17. Learned Advocate General would further argue that the
relaxation of upper age limit falls within the domain of the
policy making power of the State-Opposite Parties, as such, the
same should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. Furthermore, unless it is demonstrated before this Court
that the policy decision affects the fundamental right of a
citizen, normally this Court does not entertain any writ
application challenging such type of policy decision. In the
aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as in light of the
settled legal position, learned Advocate General submitted that
the advertisement dated 17.01.2025 at Annexure-1 does not
call for any interference by this Court. Moreover, such non-
interference in the recruitment process at this stage would be in
the larger interest of the State and the general public.
18. In his effort to repeal the argument advanced by learned
Senior Counsels appearing for Petitioners, the learned
Advocate General referred to a judgment of this Court in
Manoranjan Sahoo & ors. vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in
W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 and a batch of similar other writ
applications which were disposed of vide a common judgment
dated 27.06.2023. In the case of Manoranjan Sahoo & Ors.
(supra) and a batch of similar other writ applications, a
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was considering an
identical issue with regard to relaxation of upper age limit for
recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Such
recruitment was being carried out in terms of the Odisha Police
Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021. In the said writ application, the
Petitioners were claiming relaxation in the upper age limit by
referring to the amendment vide notification dated 11.01.2022
to the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit)
Rules, 1989.
19. The Hon'ble Division Bench after a detailed discussion
of the legal position and further referring to the Rulings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases involving somewhat
identical facts, concluded that there is no merit in the writ
applications and, accordingly, the writ applications were
dismissed. While dismissing the said writ applications it has
been observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that no case was
made out by the Petitioner that their right has been taken away
by the State and that the State Govt. has not declared any
benefit in the shape of relaxation of upper age limit. As such, it
was held that the notification dated 11.01.2022 is not
applicable to the Petitioners in that case.
20. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for
the Petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General for the
State of Odisha, this Court observes that the Petitioners in the
present batch of writ applications have approached this Court
with a prayer for grant relaxation in the upper age limit as
fixed in the advertisement dated 17.01.2025 at Annexure-1.
This Court further observes that in respect of the post of
Constables/ Sepoys pursuant to advertisement dated
22.09.2024, a decision has been taken by the State Govt. in a
high level meeting presided over by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister in presence of the learned Advocate General and other
high level state functionaries. A decision has been taken to the
effect that as a one-time benevolent measure in the larger
interest of the candidates, the State Govt. has been pleased to
grant 3 years of age relaxation in the upper age limit as fixed in
the advertisement dated 22.09.2024. On the basis of such
decision of the State Govt., the writ appeal in Bisheshawar
Biswal's case (supra) was disposed of by a Division Bench
vide a common judgment dated 25.03.2025. Although, the
present batch of writ applications were listed before the
Hon'ble Division Bench, the Hon'ble Division Bench confined
the adjudication to the pending writ appeals and after disposal
of the writ appeals, the present writ applications have been sent
back to this Court for adjudication.
21. No doubt, the Petitioners have no vested right to claim
relaxation in the upper age limit as has been fixed in the
advertisement which was issued in consonance with the
provisions contained in the rules. Moreover, the decision with
regard to relaxation in the upper age limit, being a policy
decision of the employer, the same cannot be interfered with
unless this Court holds that such a policy decision infringes the
fundamental rights of the candidates. Keeping in view the fact
that the State Govt., in its high level meeting, decided to grant
age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Constables and
Sepoys pursuant to advertisement dated 22.09.2024 in respect
of the self-same period and the present batch of Writ
applications involving the recruitment to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police relating to the very same period, although
pursuant to a different advertisement, are almost similar, this
Court requested the learned Advocate General to obtain
instruction from the State-Opposite Parties as to whether the
benefit extended to the candidates who had applied under
advertisement dated 22.09.2024 could be extended to the
present Petitioners as an one-time benevolent measure.
22. Mr. Acharya, learned Advocate General for the State of
Odisha in his usual fairness submitted before this Court that
the State Govt. is agreeable to extend the age relaxation that
has been granted to the candidates pursuant to the
advertisement dated 22.09.2024 to the present Petitioners. He
further submitted that however the State-Opposite parties have
agreed to extend such benefit keeping in view the fact that
there are a large number of vacancies in the post of Sub-
Inspector and as a result of the pendency of the present writ
application they are unable to fill up those posts. He further
submitted that the State Govt. is willing to relax subject to
condition that such relaxation shall be as a one-time benevolent
measure and shall not be treated as a precedent in future.
23. On perusal of a copy of letter dated 24.07.2025 which
was produced before this Court by the learned Advocate
General for the State of Odisha, it appears that the Home
Department, Govt. of Odisha has taken a decision pursuant to
the observation of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 and
the proposal of DG & IG of Police, Odisha vide his Letter
dated 24.07.2025 and the same has been quoted hereinbelow:-
i) Age relaxation of 3 years to each category of candidates
shall be allowed for recruitment of SI and equivalent posts
conducted by OPRB.
ii) The candidates eligible by virtue of above relaxation
will be allowed to submit their application and OPRB will
take necessary steps in this regard.
iii) The candidates who had already applied in pursuant to
above advertisement need not apply afresh and their
candidature shall be considered by the OPRB with above
relaxation.
It has also been observed that the aforesaid decision has
been taken by the State of Odisha as a onetime benevolent
measure and that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in
future.
This Court appreciates the role of the learned Advocate
General in convincing the State Government and resolving the
issue involved here in the present writ applications.
24. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners on
the other hand accepted the aforesaid decision of the State-
Opposite Parties unconditionally and they further submitted
that since the State Government has already taken a decision to
grant age relaxation up to 3 years to all aspiring candidates,
they will not insist upon adjudication of the issue involved in
the present writ applications and, accordingly, they are ready
and willing to withdraw the writ applications in terms of the
aforesaid decision of the State Government vide letter dated
24.07.2025.
25. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the present writ applications in terms of
the decision taken by the State Government and communicated
to the learned Advocate General vide letter dated 24.07.2025.
Accordingly, while disposing of the present writ applications,
this Court directs the Opposite Parties to publish a fresh
corrigendum indicating the aforesaid age relaxation. Such
corrigendum shall be given wide publicity as per the normal
practice adopted by the State-Opposite Parties. Further, the
Opposite Parties shall open the Web Portal for a period of ten
days starting w.e.f. 28.07.2025 and accept the online
application forms which are likely to be submitted by the
candidates who are found eligible in terms of the aforesaid age
relaxation and who have not applied earlier. So far the
candidates who have already applied, they need not apply
again. Accordingly, the applications submitted by all eligible
candidates including the candidates who were found eligible
pursuant to the decision of the State Government to grant 3
years age relaxation shall be considered simultaneously.
Considering the fact that the recruitment process has already
been delayed, the State-Opposite Parties are directed to make
every endeavour to conclude the entire selection process as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three
months from today. Before parting this Court would like to
further clarify that the decision taken by the State-Opposite
parties and communicated to the learned Advocate General
vide letter dated 24.07.2025 has been taken as a onetime
benevolent measure and the same shall not be treated as a
precedent in future.
26. Accordingly, the writ applications stand disposed of in
terms of the directions contained in the present order.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Jul-2025 12:19:20
