Orissa High Court
Laxmipriya Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos. 27703, 30326 30387, 30587, 30436,
30468, 30478, 30492, 30545, 30547, 30553, 30555,
30561, 30563, 30565, 30596, 30600, 30618, 30641,
30645, 30661, 30675, 30690, 30691, 30692, 30700,
30706, 30723, 30729, 30733, 30753, 30763, 30764
& 30765 of 2021
W.P.(C) No.30587 of 2021
Laxmipriya Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Patra-1, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.04.2023 Order No
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. W.P.(C) No.30326 of 2021 was not on the Board and on being mentioned, the matter taken up.
3. Heard learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.R. N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
4. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the fixation of upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Contractual Trained Graduate Teachers & Telugu Teachers in Government Secondary Schools of the State of Odisha, 2021 in terms of advertisement issued on 28.08.2021.
4.1. It is contended that in the notice issued by the Opposite Party No.2 on 28.08.2021 for recruitment to the // 2 // post of Contractual Trained Graduate Teacher, since the upper age limit was fixed at 32 years with relaxation of the age by 5 years in case of SC/ ST/SEBC/Women, the Petitioners being not within the upper age limit, they could not make their applications in terms of the notice dated 28.08.2021.
4.2. It is contended that because of the COVID-19 Pandamic, since no recruitment test was held after 23.02.2019 and the Petitioners in the meantime became overaged, they could not make their applications. It is contended that the Petitioner since were debarred to make their applications because of such fixation of upper age limit, they approached this Court in the present batch of writ petitions.
4.3. It is contended that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in all these writ petitions, the Petitioners were permitted to submit their applications offline and they were also allowed to appear in the interview. But this Court passed an order that the result shall not be declared without leave of this Court.
4.4. It is contended that in terms of the said interim order, not only the applications submitted by the Petitioner were accepted, but also they were allowed to take part in the selection process. But in view of the restriction imposed by this Court that their results shall not be published without leave, the Opposite Party No.2 is not publishing the result.
Page 2 of 6// 3 // However, it is contended that during pendency of the present batch of the writ petitions, Government in the General Administration and Public Grievance Department issued a notification on 11.01.2022 inter alia by holding as follows:-
"1. Short title and commencement-(1) These rules may be called the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Odisha Gazette.
2. In the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, after the proviso to rule 2, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
Provided further that for advertisements made during calendar years 2021, 2022 and 2023, the said upper age limit shall be thirty-eighty years."
4.5. It is contended that in view of such notification issued on 11.01.2022, since the Petitioners are coming within the age group, their applications are required to be accepted by the Opposite Parties. Not only that since the Petitioners have already taken part in the selection process, necessary direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 to publish their result and in case they have come out successful, consequential action be taken in the matter.
5. Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opposite Party No.2. It is contended that even though vide notification dated 11.01.2022 the upper age limit was fixed to 38 years in respect of the advertisements issued in the year 2021, 2022 and 2023, but subsequently a corrigendum was issued to the said notification by the General Administration and Public Grievance Department Page 3 of 6 // 4 // on 15.01.2022. In the said guideline, it was provided as follows:-
"1. Short title and commencement:- (1) These rules may be called the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Second Amendment Rules, 2022.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Odisha Gazette.
2. In the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, after the second proviso to rule 2, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided also that upper age limit as so fixed in the second proviso shall be applicable to those cases where the last date of application for recruitment to any post as per the advertisement issued is still not over as on the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022".
5.1. It is contended that since the recruitment process in terms of the advertisement which is the impugned in the present writ petitions has already been completed in view of the corrigendum issued on 15.01.2022, the Petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit of age relaxation in terms of the notification issued by the G.A Department on 11.01.2022. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that admittedly in terms of the advertisement issued on 28.08.2021, the Petitioners do not come within the upper age limit so prescribed for UR and other reserved categories. But since the advertisement in question is of the year 2021, in view of the notification issued by the General Administration and Public Grievance Department on 11.01.2022, Petitioners having belong to UR and other Page 4 of 6 // 5 // reserved categories, they come within the upper age limit and accordingly their cases were required to be considered. The plea taken by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that in view of the corrigendum issued on 15.01.2022, the upper age limit so extended to 38 years is not applicable in respect of those advertisements where the selection process is already over, cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases, as the Petitioners in terms of the interim order passed by this Court were allowed to take part in the selection process and the result thereof has not been published because of the nature of the interim order. Since the Petitioners have been allowed to take part in the selection process and their result has not been published as per the considered view of this Court, the selection process in terms of the notice dated 28.08.2021 has not yet been completed due to non publication of the result in the present batch of writ petitions. Therefore, corrigendum issued on 15.01.2022 by the G.A Department cannot be made applicable to the fact of the present case and their cases will be covered in terms of the 1st notification issued on 11.01.2022.
6.1. While holding so and taking into account the notification issued on 11.01.2022 as all the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are coming within the upper age limit having belong to General category and other reserved category, this Court while disposing the batch of the Writ Petitions directs the Opposite Party No.2 to publish the result of each of the Petitioners. On such publication of the result, if it is found that the Petitioners have qualified the test and persons securing less marks Page 5 of 6 // 6 // than the Petitioners have been provided with the appointment, appropriate action will be taken to provide appointment to the present petitioners. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
8. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Page 6 of 6