[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nitosh Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jan-2026 10:52:27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 35478 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Nitosh Kumar Das .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Ms. Sarita Moharana, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-06.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.01.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner instituted the present Writ Petition filed under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the action
of the Opposite Parties in refusing to accept the Petitioner's
application for participation in the recruitment process for the post of
Management Trainee Human Resource, MT(HR) pursuant to
Advertisement No. OHPC: HQ: HRD: RECTT:02/2025, dated-
07.11.2025, despite the Petitioner fulfilling all the prescribed
eligibility criteria as stipulated in the said advertisement.
Page 1
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the pleadings:
(i) Opposite Party No.2, Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd.
(OHPCL), issued Advertisement No. OHPC: HQ: HRD:
RECTT:02/2025 dated 07.11.2025, inviting applications for
recruitment to the posts of Management Trainees (MTs) and
Diploma Engineers Trainees (DETs) in various disciplines, for
induction and subsequent deployment at different units and
project sites of the Corporation.
(ii) Applications for the aforesaid posts were invited exclusively
through online mode, and the relevant application link was
hosted on the official website of Opposite Party No.2, namely
www.ohpcltd.com The online application portal remained
open from 12.11.2025 to 11.12.2025.
(iii) The advertisement, under Clause (F), clearly prescribed the
age eligibility criteria, stipulating a minimum and maximum
age limit of 18 to 32 years for candidates applying for the post
of DETs, and 21 to 32 years for candidates applying for the post
of MTs. It further provided for relaxation of the upper age limit
by 5 years for candidates belonging to SC/ST/SEBC/Women
categories and 10 years for candidates belonging to the PwD
category, notwithstanding that no vacancy was specifically
earmarked for the SEBC category.
Page 2
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iv) The Petitioner, being a BBA graduate with an MBA
qualification and belonging to the SEBC (reserved) category,
found himself fully eligible for the post of Management Trainee
(HR) under the unreserved category, in terms of the eligibility
conditions stipulated in the advertisement, and accordingly
submitted his application through the online portal within the
stipulated time.
(v) Upon submission of the online application, an auto-generated
Unique Registration Number, i.e., OHPCL25013790, was
initially allotted to the Petitioner. However, subsequently, the
Opposite Parties declined to accept the Petitioner's application
on the purported ground of over-age, thereby rejecting his
candidature without lawful justification.
Aggrieved by the foregoing inaction of the Opposite Party No.2, the
Petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly
made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. (OHPCL) issued
Advertisement No. OHPC: HQ: HRD: RECTT:02/2025, dated
07.11.2025, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of
Management Trainees (MTs) and Diploma Engineer Trainees
(DETs) in various disciplines.
Page 3
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) The Petitioner is a BBA graduate with an MBA qualification
and belongs to the reserved category, i.e., SEBC. In terms of the
eligibility conditions, including age criteria and educational
qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement, the
Petitioner was fully eligible for consideration for the post of
Management Trainee (HR) under the unreserved category, as
the advertisement did not prohibit candidates belonging to
reserved categories from competing for unreserved posts.
(iii) Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for
the aforesaid post through the online application link hosted
on the official website of OHPCL. Upon initiation of the online
application process, an auto-generated Unique Registration
Number, i.e., OHPCL25013790, was allotted to the Petitioner.
However, while the Petitioner was in the process of completing
and submitting the online application form, the online portal
failed to accept the application, displaying a pop-up message
stating "over-age" as the reason for rejection, notwithstanding
the fact that the Petitioner fell within the upper age limit after
availing the age relaxation expressly provided to SEBC
candidates under the advertisement.
(iv) Aggrieved by the abrupt rejection of his application, the
Petitioner made inquiries through the OHPC Help Desk
telephone number provided in the advertisement. The
Petitioner was informed by the concerned officials that his
Page 4
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
online application could not be accepted on the ground that no
vacancy had been earmarked for the SEBC category, and that
for the said reason, his candidature stood rejected, even though
he had applied against an unreserved vacancy.
(v) The Petitioner possesses all the qualifications required for the
post of MT(HR) and being a member of the SEBC category, is
eligible for the upper age limit relaxation as prescribed under
Clause F(iii) of the said advertisement. To buttress this
argument, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's
observation in Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy1, wherein it
was noted that in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.
& Ors2, the court was called upon to decide the whether
availing relaxation in fees or in the upper age limit by
candidates belonging to the reserved category would disentitle
them from being considered for appointment against
unreserved seats. The Bench held that such relaxations in fee or
age were incidental and ancillary provisions to the core concept
of reservation. These concessions were merely an 'aid to
reservation' and enabled the reserved category candidates to
participate in open competition on merit. The Court further
observed that such concessions did not affect the level-playing
field in the recruitment process, as both reserved and
AIR 2025 SC 4158
2 (2010) 3 SCC 119
Page 5
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
unreserved categories continue to compete with each other on
equal footing, without any undue advantage.
(vi) It is apposite to state that, even in the absence of a specific
vacancy reserved for the SEBC Category, the Petitioner, being a
member of the said category, remains entitled to the benefit of
age relaxation and is eligible to participate in the recruitment
process under the unreserved category in terms of the
provisions of the aforesaid advertisement.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly
made the submission that the present Writ Petition is not
maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Opposite Party submits that the Petitioner has no
indefeasible right to seek consideration for appointment in
contravention of the terms and conditions stipulated in the
recruitment advertisement. It is contended that the recruitment
advertisement constitutes the governing framework of the
selection process, and the eligibility criteria, conditions, and
instructions contained therein are binding both on the
recruiting authority as well as on all candidates participating in
the selection process.
(ii) The Opposite Parties further contend that Clause F(iii) of the
advertisement stipulates relaxation of the upper age limit by
Page 6
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
five years for candidates belonging to
SC/ST/SEBC/Women/Ex-Servicemen and by ten years for
candidates belonging to the PwD category. However,
placing reliance on Clause G of the advertisement, the
Opposite Parties submit that the concessions meant for SEBC
candidates are admissible only to SEBC candidates of
Odisha, and that reservation is to be applied strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Reservation of
Vacancies (ORV) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, with
category-wise vacancies expressly specified in Clause A of
the advertisement.
(iii) It is the specific stand of the Opposite Parties that, since no
vacancy has been earmarked for the SEBC category, the
benefit of upper age relaxation contemplated under Clause
F(iii) of the advertisement cannot be extended to candidates
applying against unreserved posts, in the absence of any
express statutory rule or provision in the advertisement
permitting what is described as "category-based relaxation
without corresponding reservation."
(iv) The Opposite Parties further submit that when a candidate
belonging to a reserved category seeks consideration against
an unreserved post, such candidate is required to satisfy all
eligibility conditions applicable to the unreserved category,
and cannot claim age relaxation or other category-specific
Page 7
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
concessions, unless such benefit is expressly provided for
under the applicable recruitment rules or the terms of the
advertisement. In other words, the migration of a reserved
category candidate to the unreserved category is permissible
only in accordance with, and subject to, explicit statutory or
contractual authorization governing the recruitment process.
(v) The issue stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sajib Roy
(supra), wherein the Court examined the permissibility of
consideration of candidates belonging to reserved categories
against unreserved vacancies. The Hon'ble Court has held
that such consideration, commonly referred to as migration
of a reserved category candidate to the unreserved category,
is not an automatic or inherent right, but must be expressly
sanctioned either by the applicable recruitment rules or by
the terms and conditions contained in the recruitment
notification.
(vi) The Supreme Court has further clarified that, in the absence
of any express statutory provision or an explicit clause in the
recruitment advertisement permitting such migration, a
candidate belonging to a reserved category and seeking
appointment against an unreserved post is required to
satisfy all eligibility conditions applicable to the unreserved
category, without claiming any category-specific
Page 8
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
concessions. Accordingly, the permissibility and extent of
such migration are to be determined strictly on the basis of
the governing recruitment rules and the express stipulations
contained in the recruitment notification, and cannot be
inferred by implication or assumed by analogy.
(vii) Relying upon the aforesaid principles, the Opposite Parties
further submit that neither the applicable recruitment rules
nor the terms of the recruitment advertisement authorize the
grant of age relaxation to SEBC candidates when they are not
competing against posts reserved for the SEBC category. It is
contended that the provision relating to age relaxation
merely acknowledges the entitlement of SEBC candidates to
such relaxation within the framework of reservation, and
therefore must be read harmoniously with the category-wise
vacancy matrix expressly specified in the advertisement. In
the absence of any vacancy earmarked for the SEBC
category, the Opposite Parties assert that the benefit of age
relaxation cannot be extended to candidates applying against
unreserved posts.
(viii) The Opposite Parties further contend that matters pertaining
to recruitment policy, including the fixation of age limits,
determination of category-wise vacancies, and the grant or
denial of relaxations, lie predominantly within the policy
domain of the employer and the State. It is submitted that
Page 9
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
judicial interference in such matters is impermissible unless
the decision-making process is shown to suffer from
manifest arbitrariness, perversity, or a patent illegality of a
brazen nature.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
6. In light of the foregoing facts and rival submissions, the primary
issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the
Petitioner, who was declared ineligible for applying to the post of
Management Trainee (Human Resources) under the impugned
recruitment advertisement, is legally entitled to participate in the
recruitment process for the said post.
7. It is observed that Opposite Party No.2 issued Advertisement No.
OHPC: HQ: HRD: RECTT:02/2025 dated 07.11.2025, inviting online
applications for recruitment to the posts of Management Trainees
(MTs) and Diploma Engineer Trainees (DETs), prescribing detailed
eligibility conditions, including age limits and permissible
relaxations. In so far as the post of Management Trainee (Human
Resources) is concerned, the advertisement notified four (4)
vacancies, namely three (3) Unreserved (UR) and one (1) Scheduled
Tribe (ST), with no vacancy earmarked for the SEBC category in the
said cadre.
Page 10
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
8. It is further observed that, in the present case, the Petitioner was 35
years and 5 months of age as on the relevant cut-off date prescribed
in the recruitment advertisement. The Petitioner sought
consideration for appointment against the Unreserved category, for
which the maximum age limit stipulated in the notification is 32
years which is without any relaxation expressly provided for
Unreserved candidates.
9. On a plain, literal, and textual reading of the eligibility conditions
stipulated in the recruitment advertisement, the Petitioner would
ordinarily be regarded as over-aged for consideration against the
Unreserved posts. The vital question, however, arises for
consideration is whether the Petitioner, by virtue of belonging to the
SEBC category, is entitled to avail the benefit of age relaxation
provided under Clause F(iii) of the advertisement while competing
for an Unreserved vacancy. Similar issue was confronted by the
Supreme Court in the Union of India v. Sajib Roy,3, wherein it has
been held that:
"15. Given this situation, the High Court erred in
mechanically applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh
& Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors to the present case without
appreciating the difference in the factual matrix of the
present case with the cited authority. While in instructions
dated 25.03.1994 expressly permitted reserved candidates
who have availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit etc. to
be considered for appointment in unreserved category,
2025 SCC Online SC 1943
Page 11
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 clearly barred such
migration in the event the reserved candidates had availed
in age, experience qualification, etc."
10. In the present case, the migration of a candidate belonging to a
reserved category to the Unreserved category is permissible only if
such migration is expressly authorized by the applicable recruitment
rules or by the terms of the recruitment advertisement. Where the
recruitment notification either expressly prohibits or does not
contemplate such migration, the benefit of age relaxation or other
category-based concessions cannot be invoked to circumvent the
prescribed eligibility conditions applicable to Unreserved posts. Any
attempt to avail such relaxation in the absence of enabling provisions
would render the candidate ineligible for consideration against the
Unreserved category. It is often observed by the Constitutional
Courts that the formulation of recruitment policy, including the
fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and grant of
relaxation, squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the
employer. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, would refrain from interfering with the
same.
11. It is further stated that the online application portal automatically
applies the prescribed age eligibility criteria to all applicants on the
basis of their date of birth, declared category, and the category-wise
vacancies notified in the advertisement. In the present case, the
Page 12
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Petitioner's application was rejected at the threshold on the ground
of being over-aged, with reference to the age limit applicable to the
Unreserved category. Moreover, the advertisement itself expressly
stipulated that no vacancy was earmarked for the SEBC category in
the cadre of Management Trainee (HR) and that age relaxation could
not be availed in the absence of a specific vacancy for the concerned
category, thereby leaving no scope for discretionary or ad hoc
application of relaxations.
12. This Court is of the considered view that, in the present case, the
prescribed age limit for candidates belonging to the Unreserved
category for the post of Management Trainee (Human Resources), as
stipulated under Clause F(ii) of the recruitment advertisement,
requires that a candidate must not be below 21 years and must not
have attained the age of 32 years as on 01.08.2025.
13. Admittedly, the Petitioner exceeds the upper age limit prescribed for
the Unreserved category and is, therefore, ineligible for consideration
against the said category. Furthermore, the recruitment
advertisement unequivocally discloses that no vacancy has been
earmarked for the SEBC category in the concerned cadre. In the
absence of any post reserved for the said category, the Petitioner
cannot, as a matter of right, claim the benefit of age relaxation
applicable to SEBC candidates. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not
entitled to seek such relaxation when no vacancy exists for his
category under the recruitment notification.
Page 13
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
V. This Court is also of the considered view that a judicial
pronouncement must be read and understood in the context of the
facts of the case in which it is rendered, as each case turns on its own
distinct and distinguishable factual matrix. The ratio decidendi of a
decision cannot be mechanically or abstractly applied, divorced from
the factual and statutory context that shapes the judgment. If the
relief sought by the Petitioner were to be granted in the present case,
it would result in hostile and unconstitutional discrimination among
candidates competing in the Unreserved category, thereby violating
the guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public
employment enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
VI. CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious and careful
consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled to
apply for the post in question. It is reiterated that the migration of a
candidate belonging to a reserved category to the Unreserved category
is permissible only where such migration is expressly contemplated
under the applicable recruitment rules or the terms of the recruitment
advertisement. In the absence of any such enabling provision in the
present case, the Petitioner cannot claim consideration for age
relaxation against the Unreserved category. Consequently, this Court
Page 14
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
finds no merit in the Writ Petition and is not inclined to grant the reliefs
prayed for. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 15th January, 2026/
Page 15
