Eligibility for appointment when age limits are improperly applied in recruitment processes.

ORDER : 

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Since the issue involved in the present case is with regard to getting the benefit of appointment as against the post of Social Worker in the establishment of Acharya Harihara Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. Both the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7866 of 2022 and petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.12811 of 2020 and 8778 of 2023 were appointed through out sourcing as Social Worker vide order dated 24.03.2017 so issued by the Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer (AHPGIC). It is contended that while so continuing through out sourcing, when an advertisement was issued by the AHPGIC on 14.08.2019, to fill up 4 (four) posts of Social Worker, petitioners in both the cases face recruitment process and in the said recruitment process candidature of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 was rejected on the ground that she is over aged.

4.1. Petitioner in the said Writ Petition accordingly approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2019 when directed the Collector, Cuttack to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim, Collector, Cuttack passed the order under Annexure-A/3 on 31.12.2019.

4.2. Basing on the said order, a further order was passed by AHPGIC on 08.02.2022. Vide the said order, AHPGIC came to a conclusion that since by the time Collector passed such an order on 31.12.2019, process of selection pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2019 had already been completed, there is no scope to entertain the application of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020.

4.3. However, one post was reserved for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 until further orders, as by the said date, W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 was pending before this Court with a prayer to regularize the services of the petitioner therein. It is contended that subsequently when the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo was terminated from her services on the ground that agreement with the out sourcing agency has been cancelled vide communication dated 17.03.2023 so issued by the AHPGIC, the matter was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023.

4.4. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.03.2023, it is not disputed that petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo is continuing through out sourcing. However, petitioner-Surekha Nayak in spite of being selected pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2019, neither was provided with the regular appointment nor was allowed to continue through out sourcing as like the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo.

5. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in both the cases contended that since in the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, the Centre prescribed the upper age limit, which was not permissible, the same was interfered with by the Collector vide his order dated 31.12.2019. Accordingly, the entire process of selection in terms of Annexure-2 should have been quashed by AHPGIC in spite of passing an order on dated 08.02.2022.

6. Mr. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for AHPGIC on the other hand contended that the upper age limit was fixed in the advertisement dated 14.08.2019 in terms of the guideline issued by the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research National Cancer Registry Programme. It is contended that since in the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, the said age limit was prescribed, no illegality or irregularity was committed.

6.1. A further submission was made that Collector is not the authority to decide the issue with regard to the fixation of upper age limit by AHPGIC. A further submission was also made that even though the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo was given age relaxation of 5 (five) years but she could not qualify the recruitment in terms of the advertisement dated 14.08.2019.

6.2. However, purs