Orissa High Court
Aditya Mirdha & Ors vs State Of Odisha &Ors. .... Opp. Parties on 17 December, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 26084 of 2024
Along with
Batch of Writ Petitions
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
(In WP(C) No. 26084 of 2024)
Aditya Mirdha & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha &Ors. .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in their respective cases through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Priyaranjan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jugal Kishore Panda, Adv.
Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali, Adv.
Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Pati, Adv.
Mr. Manoranjan Padhi, Adv.
Mr. Madan Mohan Das, Adv.
Mr. Gyan Ranjan Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Chandra Dash, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:-12.12.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024
W.P.(C) No.26084 of 2024 along with W.P.(C) Nos. 26256, 26259,
26432, 26450, 26483, 26560, 26677, 27033, 27122, 27172, 27192, 27459,
27751, 28138, 28556, 28837, 29158, 29347, 29486, 31136 & 31423 of
2024
Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above-
mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal with W.P.(C) No.26084 of 2024 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases.
2. The Petitioners have filed the above-mentioned Writ Petitions challenging the Advertisement No.1924 dated 03.10.2024 issued by the Chairman, State Selection Board, Odisha Police for recruitment to the post of Drivers in the Police Motor Transport, Odisha.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) An advertisement dated 03.10.2024, for recruitment to the posts of Drivers in the Police Motor Transport (PMT), was issued by the State Selection Board, Odisha Police. The advertisement delineated a total of 405 vacancies.
(ii) Clause 3 of the advertisement specified the age criteria, stating that candidates had to be at least 18 years and no more than 23 years of age as of 01.01.2024. An additional relaxation of five years was provided for candidates belonging to the SC/ST/SEBC categories.
(iii) Candidates were required to have passed the High School Certificate Examination (Matriculation/10th Class) conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, or an equivalent examination conducted by any other recognized Board or Council.
Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
(iv) The selection process comprised a written test (Computer-Based Recruitment Examination), followed by Physical Measurement, Physical Efficiency Tests, Driving Test, and Medical Examination for shortlisted candidates.
(v) The Advertisement for recruitment to the concerned posts was issued on 07.03.2020. No subsequent recruitment carried out, reportedly due to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
(vi) The petitioners had successfully passed the High School Certificate Examination, thereby meeting the prescribed minimum educational qualification and eligibility criteria.
(vii) However, since then, the petitioners had exceeded the prescribed upper age limit of 23 years and were consequently ineligible to apply for the posts. Similarly, candidates from the SC/ST/SEBC categories had also surpassed the specified upper age limit. As a result, this batch of writ petitions was filed, seeking this Court's interference to allow the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process by granting appropriate relaxation in the upper age limit.
II. PETITIONERS' SUBMISSIONS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioners contended that Clause 3 of the advertisement dated 03.10.2024, prescribing an upper age limit at 23 years, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Rule 2 of the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989. The said rule prescribes an upper age limit of 32 years for entry into government service, unless a specific Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 higher age limit is provided for a particular post or service. Since Rule 2 contains a non-obstante clause and is framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, it overrides the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022.
(ii) The petitioners further submitted that the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, were amended in 2022 to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, raising the upper age limit to 38 years for advertisements issued in 2021, 2022, and 2023. This relaxation was intended to benefit candidates whose recruitment opportunities were disrupted due to the pandemic. However, the current recruitment process for P.M.T. Drivers fails to extend the benefit of the amended rule, despite its clear applicability.
(iii) The petitioners asserted that the failure to issue recruitment advertisements for the post of P.M.T. Driver over the past four years has unjustly excluded them and other eligible candidates from participating in the recruitment process. This prolonged exclusion has violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution. In the interest of justice, the petitioners seek a modification of the advertisement dated 03.10.2024 to relax the upper age limit to 29 years, in accordance with Rule 2 of the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989.
(iv) The petitioners submitted that the five-year age relaxation granted to SC/ST/SEBC candidates does not compromise operational efficiency or Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 fitness, as age is not a factor affecting their suitability for the role. They argued that a similar relaxation should be extended to candidates from other categories, particularly given the State's acknowledgment of the need for enhanced age limits to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
(v) The petitioners further submitted that they are presently seeking this Court's indulgence to allow their participation in the recruitment process, subject to their performance in the physical measurement and efficiency tests, as well as the written examination. They contended that their exclusion at this preliminary stage is arbitrary and unjustified. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022, prescribe an upper age limit of 23 years for candidates applying for the posts of PMT Driver.
This age limit was prescribed to ensure that recruits were physically capable of meeting the demands of rigorous training, maintaining law and order, and engaging in high-risk anti-Naxal operations. The statutory rules provided for age relaxations exclusively for candidates belonging to reserved categories.
(ii) The Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022, were framed by the State Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 Government under its authority derived from Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. As specific rules governing the recruitment process for Drivers in the Odisha Police Motor Transport, these Rules override general recruitment regulations. The Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, being general rules applicable to civil services recruitment, do not extend to the present recruitment. Consequently, the age limit prescribed by the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022, govern this recruitment process and takes precedence over the general provisions of the Orissa Civil Service Rules.
(iii) The petitioners' plea for relaxation of the prescribed age limit lacks merit. The last recruitment for these posts was conducted in 2018, and the present recruitment process, advertised in 2024, is governed by the Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022. The passage of time since the previous recruitment does not confer upon the petitioners or other candidates an automatic right to seek age relaxation. The State possesses the prerogative to establish and modify recruitment criteria, including age limits, in alignment with prevailing circumstances and public interest considerations.
(iv) Clause 29 of the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022 vests the competent authority with discretionary power to relax the age limit. Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 However, as this provision confers discretion, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the competent authority to grant such relaxation. The formulation and implementation of recruitment policies, including discretionary decisions regarding age relaxation, fall within the exclusive domain of the executive. The judiciary cannot direct the executive to exercise its discretion in a specific manner contrary to its independent judgment.
(v) To support his argument, he cited several judgments relevant to the issue at hand. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ajay Dogra1, the Supreme Court underscored that when the validity of a rule is not specifically challenged in a writ petition or before the Court, the Court is precluded from examining the validity or fairness of the rule. In the instant case, as the petitioners have not challenged the relevant provisions of the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022, their plea for relaxation of the upper age limit lacks legal merit, and this Court is not empowered to entertain or decide upon such claims.
(vi) Reference has also been made to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vikash Kumar Singh2, where it was observed that the decision to grant relaxation lies solely within the discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
1 (2011) 14 SCC 243 2 (2022) 1 SCC 347 Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
(vii) Similar sentiment has been expressed in Manoranjan Sahu & ors. v.
State of Odisha and Ors. and batch of cases3, Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade4,B.P. Sibasankar v. State of Odisha and others5 and Ramesh Chandra Dhal v. State of Odisha and others6.
IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
6. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The first question posed for the consideration of this Court is whether this Court is empowered to issue a direction to the concerned authority to relax the prescribed age limit, and whether the applicable rules permit such relaxation.
8. More often than not, it is settled that the executive enjoys the exclusive prerogative to formulate policies in response to prevailing circumstances and administrative exigencies, a domain that is foundational to the separation of powers in a constitutional framework.
Courts have traditionally exhibited judicial restraint in this area, refraining from encroaching upon policy decisions unless such decisions are challenged on grounds of violating constitutional mandates or statutory provisions. Judicial intervention in policy matters is warranted only when it is demonstrated that the impugned decision infringes upon fundamental rights or breaches statutory obligations.
3 W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 (DB) 4 (2019) 6 SCC 362 5 2022 SCC Online Ori 3687 6 2022 SCC Online Ori 2777 Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
9. In instances where a government or public authority is alleged to have acted arbitrarily or failed to exercise its discretion fairly, the judiciary may issue a writ of mandamus to compel lawful action. This ensures that discretionary powers are exercised in accordance with established legal principles, taking into account all relevant considerations, and avoiding actions that frustrate the intended purpose of such discretion. However, courts must remain mindful of their limited role in such matters and intervene only in clear and compelling cases of constitutional or statutory violations, thereby maintaining the delicate balance between judicial oversight and executive autonomy.
10. In Rachna v. Union of India7, the Supreme court, while considering the plea for an extra attempt for the UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020 in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, observed that Judicial scrutiny of a policy decision arises only if it is alleged to infringe fundamental rights under the Constitution or statutory rights. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow:
"45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate. The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision 7 (2021) 5 SCC 638 Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for the reason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the participant in the Civil Service Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right."
11. In Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd.8 the Apex Court further discussed scope of mandamus in discretionary matters. The scope of mandamus is broad, prioritizing justice over procedural technicalities, and it is to be issued whenever a public duty exists, and there is a failure to perform. The relevant paragraph in this regard is reproduced herein:
‚18. Therefore, it is clear that a Writ of Mandamus or a direction, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, is not to be withheld, in the exercise of powers of Article 226 on any technicalities. This is subject only to the indispensable requirements being fulfilled. There must be a public duty. While the duty may, indeed, arise form a Statute ordinarily, the duty can be imposed by common charter, common law, custom or even contract. The fact that a duty may have to be unravelled and the mist around it cleared before its shape is unfolded may not relieve the Court of its duty to cull out a public duty in a Statute or otherwise, if in substance, it exists. Equally, Mandamus would lie if the Authority, 8 (2022) 17 SCC 188 Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 which had a discretion, fails to exercise it and prefers to act under dictation of another Authority. A Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature thereof had been given a very wide scope in the conditions prevailing in this country and it is to be issued wherever there is a public duty and there is a failure to perform and the courts will not be bound by technicalities and its chief concern should be to reach justice to the wronged. We are not dilating on or diluting other requirements, which would ordinarily include the need for making a demand unless a demand is found to be futile in circumstances, which have already been catalogued in the earlier decisions of this Court."
12. The principles established by the Supreme Court affirm that a writ of mandamus is warranted when a government or public authority fails to exercise discretion or exercises it improperly, thereby frustrating the statutory, rule-based, or policy objectives. In Bharat Forge (supra), it was held that the issuance of mandamus should not be denied on technical grounds but must rest on the existence of a public duty, which may arise from statute, common law, custom, or contract. Where the existence of such a duty is not immediately evident, it is incumbent upon the Court to ascertain and articulate the duty if it exists substantively.
13. While this Court has duly noted that judicial interference in policy decisions is generally restrained, it becomes justifiable when the authority either neglects to consider a valid request or exercises its discretion in a manner that disregards the public interest. The failure to relax age limits for recruitment, especially in the context of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, could constitute an unjustifiable obstacle for eligible candidates. Should this failure be established, it Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 may justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus to remedy the situation in the public interest.
14. At the outset, it is imperative to identify the rules applicable to the recruitment of P.M.T Drivers in the Odisha Police Motor Transport. The Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022 prescribes an upper age limit of 23 years for general candidates. The impugned advertisement dated 22.09.2024 scrupulously adheres to this by setting the age criteria between 18 and 23 years. Rule 5 of the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022 provides as hereunder:
"5. Eligibility criteria for recruitment: -
(1) subject to other provisions of this order in order to be eligible a candidate must
(e) be not less than 18 (Eighteen) years of age and be not more than 23 (Twenty-Three) years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the advertisement for recruitment is issued.
Provided that the upper age limit in respect of reserved categories of candidates, referred to in clause-7, shall be relaxed in accordance with the provisions of the Acts or rules or orders or instructions in force, for the respective reserved categories."
15. It is also imperative to note that the Odisha Police Motor Transport and Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022 provides a relaxation clause as follows:
Page 12 of 19Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 "29. Relaxation- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest it may by order, for reasons to he recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any category of persons of posts."
15. The petitioners have relied on Rule 2 of the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, created under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate recruitment for civil services.
However, these rules specifically apply to pensionable posts within the civil services and are not applicable to police recruitment. In contrast, the Odisha State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Drivers) Rules, 2022, enacted under the Police Act, 1861, governs the recruitment process for P.M.T Drivers under the impugned advertisement. Since these rules are valid and comprehensive, they occupy the legislative field for the current recruitment. As a result, no other rules, including the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, can override its provisions.
16. As for the second issue, the question arises as to whether the age relaxation should be provided due to the unprecedented delays in recruitment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
17. In this context, the case of High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma9, becomes relevant, where the Supreme Court addressed a petition seeking a relaxation of the upper age limit for candidates who were unable to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (DJS) and Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination (DHJS) in 2020 and 2021 due 9 (2022) 4 SCC 643 Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court acknowledged the exceptional nature of the situation and allowed candidates who would have otherwise satisfied the age limit to participate in the 2022 recruitment cycle, recognizing that the delay was beyond their control and granting such relief was fair and just. The relevant paragraphs are produced hereinbelow:
‚18. The time schedule for conducting the recruitment process to the judicial service has been stipulated by the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission6. The object and purpose of the directions of this Court has been to ensure that the 6 (2008) 17 SCC 703 CA 2016/2022 10 recruitment process for the judicial service is conducted on schedule every year, subject to the rules of each High Court. The High Court of Delhi held its last examination for recruitment to DJS in 2019. Admittedly, no examination has been held in 2020 or in 2021. The examination for 2020 could not be conducted since the process for 2019 was still to be completed. The examination for 2020 could not be held due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this backdrop, since the examination was not conducted for two recruitment years, the High Court has after considering the issue stated before this Court through the learned senior counsel that as a onetime measure, this Court may accept the suggestion that candidates who would have qualified for the examinations were they to be held on schedule for recruitment years 2020 and 2021 in terms of the rules as they then stood, may be permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations.
19. Having regard to the fact that the recruitment examination for DJS has been last held in 2019 and two recruitment years have elapsed in the meantime, we are of the view that the suggestion of the High Court should be accepted for this year. The consequence of the acceptance of the suggestion by this Court, would be that candidates who Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 would have fulfilled the upper age limit of 32 years, for the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 would be eligible to participate in the examination for the ensuing recruitment year 2022. The age bar which they would now encounter is not of their own volition. The real element of hardship faced by such candidates has been remedied by the CA 2016/2022 11 High Court and there is no reason for this court not to accept the suggestion. The examination cannot however, be postponed indefinitely nor can the candidates who have applied be left in a state of uncertainty. The existing candidates can have no grievance by the widening of the competition. In order to facilitate this exercise, we accept the suggestion of the High Court that the last date for the receipt of application forms shall be extended to 3 April 2022 and the examination shall be held on 24 April 2022.
We direct that no impediment shall be caused in the conduct of the examination and no court shall issue any order of stay at variance with or contrary to the above directions of this Court."
18. A similar sentiment was expressed by the Delhi High Court in Nitish Kumar v. Union of India10, where the petitioners sought age relaxation for the post of Sepoy Pharma in the Indian Army due to recruitment delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court noted that the last recruitment for the post was in 2019, and the 2020-2022 recruitment cycles were canceled and the Court directed a one-time age relaxation of two years and extended the application deadline to ensure that the petitioners could apply, as they were otherwise eligible but had missed out due to the recruitment delays.
19. While the judgment in Devina Sharma (supra) provides a persuasive precedent for granting age relaxation in exceptional circumstances, it is 10 (2023 DHC 1840) Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 crucial to note that the recruitment process under consideration in the present case is fundamentally distinct from that of judicial services. Judicial services, by their nature, do not impose stringent physical fitness requirements. In contrast, the role of a Driver in the Police Motor Transport mandates a high degree of physical endurance, agility, and stamina, all of which are indispensable for the operational efficacy of the police force. Consequently, while age is a relevant criterion, it cannot be evaluated in isolation but must be considered in conjunction with the physical and functional demands of the position.
20. In the instant case, the recruitment process for the post of P.M.T. Driver entails a rigorous and multifaceted selection procedure comprising a Written Test, Physical Measurement, Physical Efficiency Tests, Driving Test, and Medical Examination for shortlisted candidates. The Police Motor Transport imposes stringent standards of physical fitness and agility to ensure that all candidates possess the capability to perform the duties associated with the position effectively. These physical benchmarks are non-negotiable and constitute a fundamental prerequisite for selection, ensuring that the operational requirements of the service are upheld. Accordingly, all candidates, irrespective of their age, are required to meet these prescribed fitness criteria.
21. Nonetheless, the COVID-19 pandemic presented an extraordinary disruption to societal systems, affecting almost every facet of life, including recruitment processes. The pandemic's consequences, such as prolonged lockdowns, operational restrictions, and delays in institutional functions, led to significant interruptions in regular Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 recruitment cycles. Many aspiring candidates who had diligently prepared for competitive examinations found themselves exceeding the prescribed age limits due to circumstances entirely beyond their control. Such candidates, otherwise eligible under normal conditions, face exclusion not for lack of merit but due to the systemic disruptions caused by an unprecedented global crisis. Penalizing them in this manner would violate principles of equity and justice, further exacerbating the hardships brought on by the pandemic.
22. In light of these exceptional circumstances, it is imperative to adopt remedial measures to safeguard the rights of affected candidates. A one-time age relaxation in the recruitment process would provide equitable relief, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged by the delays and disruptions beyond their agency. V. CONCLUSION:
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 cut- off enumerated in the advertisement across all categories and facilitate the submission of applications through online and make technical Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 arrangement so that the 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.
25. Consequently, candidates availing the age relaxation as per the cut-off date specified in the recruitment advertisement for the concerned posts shall be eligible to participate in the recruitment process. However, their final selection shall remain subject to their successful completion of all requisite stages of the selection process, including the Written Examination, Physical Measurement, Physical Efficiency Test, optional Driving Test, and Medical Examination.
26. It is made clear that the present Petitioners' case whose applications have not been accepted by the State Selection Board because of over age shall be accepted and be allowed to make arrangements for the participation of the Writ Petitioners in the selection process who are otherwise eligible. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court confines this relaxation to the present petitioners exclusively.
27. This Court further recommends that the Odisha Police State Selection Board and Odisha Police take proactive steps to establish and maintain a regular recruitment cycle aligned with emerging vacancies. Such measures would minimize disruptions and prevent avoidable complications in future recruitment processes.
28. It is again clarified that this relaxation is a one-time measure adopted in exceptional circumstances and shall not constitute a precedent for future recruitment cycles.
Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02
29. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 26084 of 2024 is allowed.
30. Consequently, all connected Writ Petitions are disposed of in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 26084 of 2024.
31. Interim order, if any, passed earlier, in any of the Writ Petitions, stands vacated.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th Dec., 2024 Page 19 of 19