Hiranya Kumar Samal & vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10570 Ori

Orissa High Court

Hiranya Kumar Samal & vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 28 November, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

   W.P.(C) Nos.29964, 31255, 31519, 32321,
        32371, 33958 & 34040 of 2023


 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
 the Constitution of India, 1950.


                         ..................


Hiranya Kumar Samal &            ....                Petitioners
Others
                          -versus-


State of Odisha & Others         ....              Opp. Parties




   For Petitioner       : Mr. Rajib Rath, Mr. S.S. Rath
                         & Mr. Y.M.S.Krishna, Advocate



  For Opp. Parties       : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC



PRESENT:



THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY


 Date of Hearing: 17.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:28.11.2025
                                 // 2 //




Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Since the issue involved in these batch of Writ Petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. However, for the sake of convenience and brevity, W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2023 is taken as the lead case.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"The petitioner therefore most respectfully prays that your lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application and issue a Rule Nisi to the opposite parties to show cause as to why:-

i) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to relax the upper age limit from 25 years to 32 years so far as the General candidates is concerned and so far as the petitioners are advertisement published as per Annexure-8 for recruitment to the concerned in the post of Fireman in the competitive examination for the year 2022-23 and the same also should be done also taking into consideration the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation Upper Age Limit) Amended Rules 2022which has raised in the General candidates age limit from 32 years to 38 years a corrigendum shall not be issued by providing age relaxation to the advertisement published as per Annexure-8 and such non relaxation in providing age relaxation makes the advertisement clause- 4 dtd.

29.08.2023 illegal and also unsustainable in the eye of law.

ii) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to extend the benefit of age relaxation as provided under Sub Rule 30 of Rules -21 for relaxation of age in accordance with the

// 3 //

provisions of Act, Rule. Orders or Instructions for the time being in force for the respective categories as stipulated under the Odisha Fire Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Fireman s) Order, 2021 by accordingly suitably modifying Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 29.08.2023 as per Annexure- 8.

iii) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to relax the upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Fireman examination 2022-23 taking into consideration the Opp. Parties press statement issued as per annexure-4 and also take appropriate policy decision as no recruitment has been conducted to the post of Fireman (Civil) since the year 2015 taking into consideration the pandemic covid.

iv) it should not be declared that the decision taken by the Opp. Parties as per Clause-4 of the advertisement annexed to the petition as Annexure-8 in not extending the benefit of age relaxation for the recruitment to the post of Fireman is not in consonance with the amended Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules 2022, created in exercise of power under Article-309 of the Constitution of India which would be in force to fill in the gap of age relaxation not provided under the Rules 2021 as illegal, arbitrary and highly discriminatory and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

v) the petitioners shall not be permitted to appear in the examination in the competitive recruitment examination 2022-23 for 826 posts for Fireman and 115 posts for Fireman Driver by extending the benefit of age relaxation by 8 years as has been done in the case of other recruitment for entry to Group C posts under the State Government.

And

On their failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause make the said Rule Nisi absolute.

And

Pass such other further order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

// 4 //

And for this act of kindness the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray."

4. It is contended that in the advertisement issued

on 29.08.2023 under Annexure-8, applications were

invited for recruitment of 826 posts of Fireman and 150

post of Fireman Driver in the establishment of DG & IG

of fire Service, Odisha, Cuttack. However, Petitioners

being aggrieved by the upper age limit fixed in the said

advertisement at 25 years, approached this Court by

challenging such fixation of the upper age limit and

with a prayer to give age relaxation to the Petitioners,

to take part in the selection process pursuant to the

advertisement.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

contended that pursuant to the interim order passed

by this Court on 18.09.2023, Petitioners were

permitted to appear in the recruitment process and

direction was issued to Opposite Party No.2 to accept

the application form of the Petitioners offline, but with

the condition that the result shall not be published

without leave of this Court.

// 5 //

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such interim

order passed by this Court on 18.09.2023, when the

offline applications were not accepted by the Opposite

Parties, this Court passed a further order on

13.10.2023 in I.A. No.16473 of 2023. Vide the said

order, Opposite Parties were directed to accept the hard

copy of the application if the same are submitted by

16.09.2023 and Petitioners be permitted to participate

in the recruitment process. However, result of the

recruitment test in respect of the Petitioners shall not

be published without leave of this Court. It is further

observed that Petitioners shall not claim any equity

merely on the basis of their participation in the

recruitment tests as permitted.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

contended that pursuant to such order passed by this

Court on 13.10.2023, not only the applications

submitted by the Petitioners offline were accepted, but

also Petitioners were permitted to participate in the

recruitment process.

// 6 //

4.4. It is contended that in the recruitment process so

conducted, from out of the Petitioners in the present

Writ Petition and the connected batch of Writ Petitions,

seven candidates have qualified as against the post of

Fireman as well as Fireman driver. Since only seven of

the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition and the

connected batch of Writ Petitions who were allowed to

participate in the selection process in terms of orders

dtd.18.09.2023 and 13.10.2023 have qualified the test,

a prayer when was made to extend the benefit of age

relaxation, thereby allowing the Petitioners to be

provided with the appointment, this Court passed the

following order on 15.02.2024:-

"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

3. In course of hearing, this Court observed that the Petitioners in a batch of writ applications, who are allowed to participate in the recruitment process, only 7 out of them have been finally found to be eligible as per the list published on 30.01.2024.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that pursuant to the interim order such persons were allowed to participate in the recruitment process, however, they are not eligible to be appointed as they are not eligible for appointment in

// 7 //

view of the age criteria fixed in the Odisha Fire Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service of the Group-„C‟ Officers) Rules, 2021. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that the aforesaid rule of the year 2021 has been enacted under Section 26 (2) of Odisha Fire Service Act, 1993. In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the relaxation granted to candidates under the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper age limit) amended rules, 2022 cannot be extended to the present Petitioners as the aforesaid amendment rule is applicable to all service rules formulated under Article- 309 of the Constitution of India. So far the present Rule, 2021 is concerned, the same is under Section 26 (2) of the Odisha Fire Service Act.

5. On a careful examination of the Rules under Annexure-1 of W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2023, this Court found Rule 30 provides the Relaxation clause. On a perusal of Rule 30, it appears that the State Government has been vested with power to relax any of the rules for the reasons to be recorded in writing in respect of any class or category of employees in the interest of public service. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid provision that any of the provisions of these rules can be relaxed by the State Government in the interest of public service. This Court further observes that to grant of age relaxation to the employees who could not participate in the recruitment process during Covid-19 pandemic as no recruitment was held during those days. The State Government by suitably amending fixation of upper age limit rules, 1989 by an amending Rule in the year 2022 granted age relaxation to many candidates who could not participate in any recruitment test which were as those cases were not conducted during those Covid pandemic days. A Similar issue was before this Court in Nagen Bhoi & ors. vs. State of Odisha & ors. in W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023 & a batch of similar other matters. This Court after taking note of several judgments had categorically directed the SCS, Home Dept. to exercise his power under Order 17 of the Police Order, 2021 and to grant such relaxation of upper age limit up to 4 years as a onetime measure by taking into consideration the grounds taken by the Petitioners in those cases. While passing such order, this Court was not interfered with the selection process and that the advertisement was not cancelled. Keeping in view the spirit of judgment in

// 8 //

Nagen Bhoi‟s case (supra), this Court as an interim measure it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 to examine the cases of seven selected candidates under Rule 30 of the 2021 Rules. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 keeping in view the principles laid down in Nagen Bhoi‟s case shall also examine as to whether such relaxation would be granted to only seven selected candidates in exercising of power under Rule 30 of the 2021 Rules. Any decision taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be placed on record by way of an affidavit.

6. List this matter in the week commencing 04.03.2024.

7. A free copy of this order be handed over to learned Additional Government Advocate for communication."

4.5. Petitioners' clam for such age relaxation was

made taking into account the nature of order passed by

this Court in a similar issue in W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023

and batch Nagen Bhoi and Ors. Vs. State of Odisha

& Ors. It is also contended that decision in the case of

Nagen Bhoi was never assailed by the State and age

relaxation was extended in terms of the judgment

dtd.24.01.2023. View of this Court in Para-54 reads as

follows:-

"54. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court directs that the Additional Chief Secretary Government of Odisha in exercise of power under Order-17 of the Police Order, 2021 shall grant relaxation in the upper age limit up to 4 years as a onetime measure by taking into consideration the grounds stated hereinabove. It is further directed that there is no necessity to cancel the entire advertisement, instead the State Selection Board shall publish a proposed Corrigendum by granting

// 9 //

age relaxation of 4 years by 30th January, 2023. Further it be directed in the said Corrigendum that the application of the candidates, who come within the aforesaid upper age relaxation limit, shall be submitted through both online as well as (offline) manual mode by 10th February, 2023. Accordingly, a fresh date for holding the recruitment examination, as would be found suitable, be fixed afresh in the week commencing 20 February, 2023 and the same be notified by the State Selection Board. The applicants who have already submitted their applications need not apply afresh again."

4.6. It is also contended that as provided under Rule-2

of the OCS (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989,

the upper age limit for entry into Government service in

Civil Service / Civil Court in Pensioner Establishment

was fixed at 32 years. Fixation of the upper age limit at

32 years, was further amended vide OCS (Fixation of

Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022. As per the

Notification issued on 11.11.2022, Government relaxed

the upper age limit to 38 years and made it mandatory

in respect of the advertisements issued during the

calendar year, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

4.7. But in the advertisement issued by the Opposite

Parties on 29.08.2023 for recruitment of Fireman and

Fireman Driver, the upper age limit was fixed at 25

years. It is accordingly contended that in view of the

// 10 //

upper age limit fixed at 38 years under the OCS

(Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022

fixation of the upper age limit at 25 years in the

impugned advertisement is not sustainable in the eye

of law.

4.8. It is also contended that the vacancies which was

reflected in the impugned advertisement, relate to the

period from 2015 onwards and no such examination

was ever held till the impugned advertisement was

issued on 29.08.2023.

4.9. It is accordingly contended that since no

recruitment take place to fill up the vacancies which

arose in the year 2015 onwards and accordingly the

Petitioners were deprived to participate in such

selection process, while issuing the advertisement on

29.08.2023 to fill up all those vacancies starting from

2015 onwards, fixation of the upper age limit at 25

years is not permissible and detrimental to the interest

of the Petitioners as well as similarly situated

candidates.

// 11 //

4.10. It is also contended that in view of the order

passed by this Court in the case of Nagen Bhoi where

this Court as an one time measure allowed four years

age relaxation to the candidates and the same having

been accepted by the State so far as recruitment of

Constable (Civil) is concerned, similar benefit is

required to be extended in respect of the selection

process initiated pursuant to Annexure-8.

4.11. It is also contended that similar benefit of age

relaxation was allowed in respect of the recruitment

conducted for recruitment of Constable, Sepoy,

Havildar and ASI (Arm) pursuant to the advertisement

issued on 22.09.2024. This Court when allowed such

age relaxation vide judgment dtd.05.12.2024 in a batch

of Writ Petitions, the same was assailed by the State by

filing Writ Appeal No.3321 of 2024 and batch vide

judgment dtd.25.03.2025.

4.12. However, all those Writ Appeals were disposed of,

basing on the concession given by the learned Advocate

General that three years age relaxation will be given in

// 12 //

respect of all category of candidates, who appeared in

the written examination pursuant to the advertisement

dtd.22.09.2024. View expressed by this Court in Para-

19 of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.3321 of 2024

reads as follows:-

"19. Without prejudice to his submissions in prosecuting the appeal, at this stage Mr. Acharya hands up his instruction of date issued by Special Secretary to Government, Home (D & A) Department in Government of Odisha. He submits, it is pursuant to observation earlier made by us. Text of the instruction is reproduced below.

"I am directed to inform you that, a High Level Meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble C.M. in the presence of Advocate General, Odisha, Chief Secretary, Odisha, ACS, Home Department, DGP, Odisha, Chairman, State Selection Board and others.

It was decided that as a onetime benevolent measure in the larger interest of the candidates who had applied for the post of Constables and Sepoys in Battalions pursuant to the Advertisement No.02/SSB, dt. 22.09.2024 before the date of making applications and have appeared in the written examination will be given three years upper age limit relaxation in respective categories of candidates as prescribed in Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Sepoys, Constables. Havildars and ASI (Armed) Order, 2022 Vide Notification No.30941/D & A, Dt.13.09.2022 of Home Department, Govt. of Odisha.

This Order may not be cited as a precedent in future."

Mr. Acharya submits, respondents, if they accept this grant of relaxation of the upper age limit as made by

// 13 //

State, it must be on acceptance of the legal position that State cannot be compelled by issuance of mandamus."

4.13. It is also contended that similar claim for age

relaxation in respect of recruitment to the post of Sub-

Inspector of Police pursuant to advertisement

dtd.17.01.2025 was also allowed with extension of

three years upper age relaxation basing on the

concession given by the learned Advocate General of

the State.

4.14. It is further contended that similar prayer for

relaxation of the upper age limit was allowed by this

Court in its judgment dtd.17.12.2024 in W.P.(C)

No.26084 of 2024 and batch. This Court in Para-23

and 24 of the said judgment has held as follows:-

"23. In light of the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, this Court is inclined to allow a ONE-TIME relaxation against the upper age limit for candidates who would have otherwise been eligible had the recruitment process proceeded as originally scheduled. This measure seeks to mitigate the impact of delays and ensure fairness to affected candidates.

24. As the last recruitment for these posts was held in 2020 with no subsequent recruitment carried out, the State Selection Board shall issue a Corrigendum reflecting a four-year age relaxation from the cutoff enumerated in the advertisement across all categories and facilitate the submission of applications through online and make technical arrangement so that the

// 14 //

online portal shall accept the applications of the online applicants who are over-aged and parties to the present batch of Writ Petitions who have not applied so far."

4.15. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

also contended that similar benefit when was extended

by the High Court of Delhi, the matter was assailed

before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal No. 2016 / 2022. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its

order dtd.14.03.2022 extended the upper age limit to

45 years in respect of recruitment year 2020 and 2021.

View expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-27

to 29 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

"27. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court and the intervenors who have not fulfilled the age requirement of 35 years. Though for a short period of about a year, the High Court had deleted the requirement of a minimum age of 35 years for entry into the Higher Judicial Service, the High Court has set right the rule so as to bring it into conformity with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. The deletion of the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool of applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. Hence, there is no valid basis for this court to hold that the requirement that a candidate for the DHJS should be at least thirty-five years of age is invalid. We do not find any merit in the challenge which has been urged on behalf of the appellants to that extent.

// 15 //

28. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been apprised of the fact that several applicants for the higher judicial service examination would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45 years in 2020 or, as the case may be, 2021. As a matter of fact, Mr A D N Rao indicates that he has instructions to the effect that some of those candidates may already have or would be in the process of moving petitions before the High Court. The reasons which have weighed with this Court in allowing the High Court, as a one-time measure, to permit candidates for the DJS examination who had qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 32 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021, should on a parity of reasoning be extended to candidates for the DHJS examination who would have qualified in terms of the upper age limit of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 during which no examinations could take place for the reasons which have been noticed earlier.

29. In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, we permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations."

4.16. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions,

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended

that since the recruitment pursuant to the

advertisement dtd.29.08.2023 is being conducted in

respect of the vacancies, which arose from the year

2015, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of age

relaxation is required to be allowed by this Court.

4.17. It is further contended that since only seven

candidates have qualified in the recruitment process as

// 16 //

admitted by the Opposite Parties, no prejudice will be

caused if those seven candidates were appointed by

allowing the age relaxation in their favour as an one

time measure.

5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

for the State on the other hand made his submission

basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is

contended that fixation of upper age limit at 25 years in

the advertisement in question has been fixed in terms

of the provisions contained under the Orissa Fire

Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service

for the Group-C Officers) Rules 2021.

5.1. It is contended that such a Rule was framed in

terms of the provisions contained under Section-26 (2)

of the Orissa Fire Service Act, 1993.

5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the upper

age limit at 25 years has been fixed in terms of the

aforesaid 2021 Rules, which has been framed in terms

of the provisions contained under Section-26(2) of the

Act, fixation of upper age limit at 38 years, so made by

// 17 //

the Government while amending OCS (Fixation of

Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022 cannot be

extended to the case of the Petitioners. Since 2021

Rules is framed in terms of the provisions contained

under Section-26 of the Act, it has got overriding effect,

over the provisions contained under the 2022

Amendment Rules.

5.3. It is accordingly contended that in view of the

stipulation contained in the aforesaid 2021 Rules no

relaxation so far as upper age limit is considered is

permissible. Since the Petitioners by virtue of the

interim order passed by this Court have participated in

the selection process and this Court in its order

dtd.13.10.2023, clearly held that the Petitioners shall

not claim any equity merely on the basis of their

participation, even though only seven candidates have

been found eligible to get the benefit of appointment,

but since in terms of the stipulation contained in the

advertisement, Petitioners are not coming within the

age limit, they cannot claim the benefit of appointment

// 18 //

on the ground that they have qualified in the selection

process.

5.4. It is further contended that as provided under

Rule-6(B) of the aforesaid 2021 Rules, the age limit has

been prescribed in the age group of 18 to 25 years on

the date of making the application.

5.5. It is also fairly contended that pursuant to the

advertisement issued on 29.08.2023 out of the

advertised 826 post of Fireman, 813 candidates have

already joined. Similarly in respect of 115 post of

Fireman Driver, 113 candidates have already joined.

5.6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State

accordingly contended that in view of the fact that the

upper age limit so fixed in the impugned advertisement

has been fixed in terms of the provisions contained

under the 2021 Rules, which has been framed in terms

of the provisions contained under the 1993 Act, benefit

of upper age relaxation extended by the Government

while amending the upper age limit vide Amendment

// 19 //

Rules, 2022 is not applicable to the facts of the

Petitioners' claim.

5.7. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of

the advertisement, Petitioners do not come within the

age group of 18 to 25 years so provided under Para-6.B

of the advertisement, even though seven of the

Petitioners in the present batch have qualified, but they

are not eligible to get the benefit of appointment.

5.8. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned

Addl. Standing Counsel for the State relied on the

following decisions:-

1. Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy-Para-

17.

2. (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Others), Para-40.

3. (2019) 19 SCC 626 (State of Odisha & Another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati & Another) Para-48.

5.9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajib Roy in

Para-17 has held as follows:-

"17. In Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anris, the Court held:-

// 20 //

"21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter classicus: (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, AIR p. 688, para 19)

"19. ... Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the e...

"Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."

5.10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi &

Others in Para-40 has held as follows:-

"40. At this stage, it is relevant to notice two aspects. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 25 this Court held that Article 14, and Article 16. which was described as a facet of Article 14, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The position emerging from Kesavananda Bharatis was summed up by Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for a Bench of three Judges in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 26, That decision also reiterated how neither Parliament nor the legislature could transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a facet. This Court stated: (Indra Sawhney case 26, SCC p. 202, paras 64-

65)

"64. The preamble to the Constitution of India emphasises the principle of equality as basic to our Constitution. In Kesavananda Bharati v.

State of Kerala25 it was ruled that even constitutional amendments which offended the basic structure of the Constitution would be ultra vires the basic structure. Sikri, C.J. laid stress on the basic features enumerated in the preamble to

// 21 //

the Constitution and said that there were other basic features too which could be gathered from the constitutional scheme (para 506-A of SCC). Equality was one of the basic features referred to in the preamble to our Constitution. Shelat and Grover, JJ. also referred to the basic rights referred to in the preamble. They specifically referred to equality (paras 520 and 535-A of SCC). Hegde & Shelat, JJ. also referred to the preamble (paras 648, 652). Ray, J. (as he then was) also did so (para 886). Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 100 referred to the preamble and the equality doctrine (para 1159). Khanna, J. accepted this position (para 1471). Mathew, J. referred to equality as a basic feature (para 1621). Dwivedi, J. (paras 1882, 1883) and Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) (see para 2086) accepted this position.

65. What we mean to say is that Parliament and the legislature in this country cannot transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely. the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a facet."

5.11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar

Senapati & Another in Para-48 has held as follows:-

"48. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohantyto, it was observed: (SCC p. 458. para 56)

"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, event if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. [Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) 54, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryanas, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.36, Krishan Bhatt v. State

48 (1996) 7 SCC 426 54 (2003) 3 SCC 548: 2003 SCC (L&S) 346 57 (2011) 14 SCC 187: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 869

// 22 //

58 (2012) 7 SCC 433: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 59 (2012) 5 SCC 559: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 24 47 (2006) 3 SCC 330: 2006 SCC (L&S) 565 60 (2011) 3 SCC 436: (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83 34 (1995) 1 SCC 745 54 (2003) 3 SCC 548: 2003 SCC (L&S) 346 35 (2005) 9 SCC 164 36 (2006) 3 SCC 581 of J & K, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal]".

6. I have heard Mr. Rajib Rath, learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. P.K. Panda,

learned State Counsel. On the consent of the Parties

and with due exchange of the pleadings, the matter

was taken up for hearing at the stage of admission.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

Parties and considering the submissions made, this

Court finds that in the advertisement issued for

recruitment to the post of Fireman and Fireman Driver

on 29.08.2023 under Annexure-8, the upper age limit

was fixed at 25 years. All the Petitioners which is not

disputed, were permitted to make offline application

and take part in the recruitment process.

7.1. It is also not disputed that from out of the

Petitioners in the present Writ Petition and the

// 23 //

connected batch of Writ Petitions, only seven

candidates have come out successful for the post of

Fireman and the list so furnished by the Directorate of

Fire & Emergency Services vide its letter

dtd.30.01.2024 reads as follows:-

"In pursuant to order of the Hon‟ble High Court dated.22.01.2024 in Writ Petition W.P.(C) No.32056/2023 and W.P.(C) No.30020/2023, the following Candidates are found to have scored marks to be selected for the post of Fireman in the event that they are found eligible. This is subject to the final order of the Hon‟ble Court and doesn‟t amount to any offer of employment.

SL No Roll Number Candidate Name Category

1 1750000012 Manas Kuamr Raul SC

2 1950000032 Bijaya Kumar Rout SEBC

3 2150000064 Papu Samal UR

4 2350000070 Krushna Chandra Nayak SEBC

5 2350000075 Aditya Singh UR

6 2350000086 Prasanjit Gochhayat SC

7 3650000130 Priyadaashana Ray SEBC

// 24 //

7.2 Fixation of upper age limit at 25 years, which is

not disputed, has been fixed in terms of the provisions

contained under Rule-6(B) of the Orissa Fireman

Services (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of

Services for Group-C Officers) Rules, 2021.

7.3. It is also not disputed that such a Rule was

framed in terms of the provisions contained under

Section-26(2) of the Orissa Fire Service Act, 1993 and

in supersession of the Orissa Fire Services (Method of

Recruitment of Fireman) Order, 2006 and Orissa Fire

Service (Method of Recruitment & Condition of Services

of Fireman Driver) Rules, 2011. Even though, it is not

disputed that the upper age limit for the post in

question pursuant to the impugned advertisement has

been fixed at 25 years in terms of the provisions

contained under Rule-6(1)(B) of the 2021 Rules, but

undisputedly Government while amending the OCS

(Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules 2022,

the upper age limit has been fixed at 38 years.

// 25 //

7.4. It is also not disputed that in similar nature of

recruitment conducted by various Departments of the

State, upper age relaxation to the extent of three years

has been allowed pursuant to the order passed in the

case of Nagen Bhoi & Ors in W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023.

The said order passed in the case of Nagen Bhoi was

also never assailed by the State.

7.5. It is also found that, similar claim allowed by this

Court though was assailed by the State in W.A.

No.3321 of 2024, but State clearly accepted the

proposal for extension of the upper age limit by three

years. Not only that similar benefit of relaxation of

upper age limit by three years has been allowed by this

Court in its order dtd.24.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No.3015 of

2025 & batch. Similar benefit has also been extended

by this Court in its judgment dtd.17.12.2024 in W.P.(C)

No.20864 of 2024 and batch.

7.6. Placing reliance on the provisions contained

under the OCS (Fixation of upper age limit)

Amendment Rules, 2022 and the benefit of age

// 26 //

relaxation allowed by this Court in different Writ

Petitions and in some cases with due concession of the

State, and the fact that only seven of the Petitioners in

the present batch of the Writ Petitions have qualified

for the post of Fireman, this Court while disposing the

Writ Petition directs the Opposite Parties to relax the

upper age limit by three years, in the case of seven (7)

qualified candidates as a special case and the same be

not treated as a precedent.

7.7. By relaxing the upper age limit by three years, if

the seven Petitioners in the present batch of Writ

Petitions who have qualified in the recruitment process,

will come within the age group so prescribed for

different category of candidates, then appropriate steps

be taken to provide them appointment against the

vacancies remained un-filled as against the post of

Fireman. This Court directs the Opposite Parties to

complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2)

months from the date of receipt of this order.

// 27 //

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 28th November, 2025/Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK