Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioners contend that the maximum age for engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks, ever since the scheme came into force in the year 2000 was 42 years for general candidates with usual relaxation for reserved category candidates till 2014. For the first time in the notification published on 11.09.2014, the maximum age was reduced to 35 years. The candidates who could not apply pursuant to said notification because of overage filed writ petitions before this Court which were allowed. However, the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties, against which the concerned petitioners filed writ appeals being W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and batch. By judgment dated 23.12.2020, the Division Bench while setting aside the orders passed in the writ applications, held that since there were unfilled vacancies of posts of Sikhya Sahayaks available against which the appellants could be accommodated, the authorities were directed to accommodate the appellants against the said vacant posts. Said judgment has been complied with in the meantime.

The petitioners, despite being over-aged, applied pursuant to notification dated 26.12.2016 on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court in the writ applications and were placed in the select list but their candidature was finally rejected on the ground of overage. Since the maximum age limit of 35 years as per the previous notification dated 12.09.2014 was interfered with, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the Government would provide relaxation in age for over-aged candidates in the subsequent years. But the impugned advertisement was published fixing the upper age as 32 years which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that rejection of the case of the petitioners by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary is bad in law as the grounds cited therein are not tenable. The petitioners could not apply earlier because they had not acquired OTET and could do so only after acquiring the same. It is further claimed that the case of the petitioners is almost identical to the cases decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and batch.

11. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA would argue that the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.12.2016 has been completed since long and there was no provision for maintaining a waiting list. Secondly, the reliance placed by the petitioners on Babita Satpathy (supra) is unacceptable for the reason that said judgment was passed in personam and not in rem and moreover, the said case related to a different advertisement. Mr. Pattnaik further submits that a Coordinate Bench was not inclined to accept the contention raised by one of the candidates, Banita Biswal and had dismissed the writ application filed by her in WP (C) no.- 548 of 2017 challenging the very same advertisement involved in the present cases. The order of the Single Judge is therefore, binding on the petitioners. Mr. Pattnaik further argues that relaxation of age is a policy decision and the candidates have no right to question the same. Allowing the claim of the petitioners would violate the principles of equality as per Articles 14 and 16 and would also affect other candidates who could not apply because of overage.

16. The petitioners have heavily relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Babita Satpathy (supra). Undisputedly, the petitioners/ appellants of the said cases were candidates pursuant to the notification dated 11.09.2014. The ground of challenge was however, the fixation of upper age limit as 35 years instead of 42 years due to which the candidates had become overaged. The learned Single Judge had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the Division Bench in its judgment dated 23.12.2020 directed as follows;