Judicial review can intervene in government policy decisions if deemed arbitrary or discriminatory, particularly concerning age limits affecting employment eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. All these Writ Petitions involve common questions of fact and law and being heard together, are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For convenience and brevity, WP (C) no. 32208/2023 is treated as the lead case for consideration and discussion of the facts involved.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioners fervently pray this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order No. 19613/SME dtd. 11.08.2023 under Annexure-1 and the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Resolution bearing No. 25605 dtd. 26.12.2016 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application and the advertisement bearing No. 12511 dtd.26.12.2016 vide Annexure-10 issued by the Opp.party No.3, basing on such Resolution prescribing the upper age limit as 32 years in the place of 42 years and to extend the benefit of upper age limit to 42 years as one time measures to the petitioners and to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioners as Sikhya Sahayaks against the existing vacancies of Mayurbhanj district within a stipulated period.

And/or pass such other order/ orders or direction/directions as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;

And for this act of your kindness, the humble petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”

4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are all trained graduates and have passed OTET. Pursuant to the resolution dated 26.12.2016 of the Government of Odisha in the School and Mass Education Department for selection/engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks, an advertisement dated 26.12.2016 inviting applications was issued. The number of vacancies so notified was 14087. The petitioners having possessed the required qualifications submitted their applications and after the selection process they were placed in the select list. However, subsequently the names of the petitioners found place in the district- wise reject list on the ground of they being over-aged. The petitioners approached this Court against the rejection of their candidatures in W.P.(C). No. 40373 of 2021 inter alia, seeking a direction to the Opposite Party authorities to consider their candidature in line with the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and batch. This Court, by order dated 12.01.2022 directed the Commissioner- cum-Secretary in the Department of School & Mass Education to consider the case of the petitioners and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within ten days. By order dated 11.08.2023, the case of the petitioners was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary.

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 an