[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P(C) No. 3291 of 2017
Ashok Kumar Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 20.03.2026
02. 1. By means of this application the Petitioner is
assailing the Notification dated 26.12.2016 issued by the
School and Mass Education Department, whereby, inter
alia, the upper age limit for engagement to the post of
Sikshya Sahayak has been prescribed as 32 years, along
with the stipulation of minimum 50% marks at the
graduation level.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the
Petitioner, being duly qualified with B.Ed. and having
cleared the Odisha Teachers Eligibility Test (OTET), was
eligible for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak under the
prevailing guidelines, which consistently prescribed the
upper age limit as 42 years from the inception of the
scheme in 2000 till August, 2013. The Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into
force on 26.08.2010, followed by the Orissa Rules, 2010
notified on 27.09.2010, and the NCTE notification dated
25.08.2010 prescribing minimum qualifications, all of
which the Petitioner satisfied. While the matter stood thus,
Opp. Party No.1 issued Resolution dated 26.12.2016,
reducing the upper age limit to 32 years and prescribing
minimum 50% marks in graduation. Pursuant thereto,
steps were taken on 27.12.2016 to publish advertisements
for filling up vacancies, many of which pertained to
earlier years when the upper age limit was 42 years. By
application of the said Resolution, the Petitioner became
ineligible to participate in the selection process. It is
further the case of the Petitioner that despite availability
of vacancies and earlier observations of this Court dated
02.03.2015 regarding fixation of upper age limit at 42
years, the Opp. Parties altered the eligibility criteria,
thereby depriving the Petitioner of the opportunity to
participate in the recruitment process. Aggrieved thereby,
the Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 22.02.2017
challenging the Resolution dated 26.12.2016 and the
consequential recruitment process.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that the impugned Resolution suffers from
arbitrariness inasmuch as it retrospectively alters the
eligibility conditions governing vacancies pertaining to
earlier years. It was contended that the Petitioner, being
otherwise qualified with B.Ed. and having cleared the
Teachers Eligibility Test, had a legitimate expectation to
be considered in terms of the earlier guidelines, which
prescribed the upper age limit as 42 years. It was further
submitted that the fixation of 50% minimum marks in
graduation and reduction of the upper age limit to 32
years is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India and creates an unreasonable classification among
similarly situated candidates.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the
impugned notification being lawful, reasonable and issued
within the competence of the authority, calls for no
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this
Court finds that the issue raised in the present Writ
Petition is no longer res integra and stands squarely
covered by the order passed in W.P.(C) No.14902 of
2017, wherein it has been held that the prescription of the
upper age limit of 32 years under the Resolution dated
26.12.2016 was in conformity with the statutory Rules i.e.
the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit)
Rules, 1989 governing the field at the relevant time. It has
been categorically observed that unless the statutory Rules
fixing the upper age limit are themselves put to challenge
and declared invalid, no direction can be issued to the
authorities to prescribe an age limit inconsistent with such
Rules.
6. At this juncture, it is apposite to add herein that a
mere expectation on the part of a candidate, even if
founded upon the pattern of earlier notifications or past
practice, does not confer any enforceable right so as to
challenge a subsequent notification issued by the
competent authority. Legitimate expectation, in such
matters of public employment, cannot override or dilute
the applicability of statutory rules governing the field.
Once the eligibility criteria, including age prescription, are
stipulated in accordance with the prevailing statutory
framework and issued by the competent authority in due
conformity with law, the same must be given full effect. A
candidate cannot claim consideration dehors such rules
merely on the basis of prior policies or earlier
notifications, particularly when the governing statutory
provisions at the relevant point of time prescribe
otherwise.
7. In the present case, it is also not in dispute that the
recruitment process in question pertains to the year 2016-
2017 and considerable time has elapsed thereafter. The
relief sought by the Petitioner has thus become academic
in nature and incapable of practical enforcement at this
stage.
8. In view of the ongoing discussion, this Court finds
no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned
Resolution or to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the
Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Mar-2026 10:14:11
