Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, CHITTARANJAN DASH
Saroja Kumar Dhal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner questions legality of tribunal order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding recruitment process and age relaxation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analyzes and affirms tribunal's reasoning on eligibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court concludes order does not warrant interference. (Para 12) |
Judgment :
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the common order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No.601(C) of 2001 and O.A. No.485(C) of 2011, whereby both the Original Applications instituted by the Petitioner were dismissed.
2. The factual matrix, as emerges from the pleadings and the materials placed on record, is that the Petitioner is a graduate in Agricultural Science (B.Sc. Agriculture), having passed out in the year 1992. The post of Junior Agriculture Officer was initially being filled up by engaging Agriculture Graduates on stipend/consolidated basis under the Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha. Subsequently, the State Government contem
Eligibility criteria in recruitment must be strictly followed; participation in the selection process does not confer right to appointment or age relaxation without statutory support.
Vacancies arising before the amendment of recruitment rules are governed by the old rules, allowing eligible candidates age relaxation.
Right of the petitioners to claim age relaxation as they were within age and had applied for recruitment pursuant to the earlier advertisement which got cancelled.
One-time relaxation of age limit for recruitment is justified in light of extraordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19, reaffirming judicial intervention to ensure fairness.
The court affirmed that exceptional circumstances may necessitate a one-time relaxation of recruitment age limits to ensure fairness, particularly due to delays caused by the pandemic.
Employment cannot be claimed as legal if the appointment violated established recruitment age criteria, regardless of prior service or the rules governing age relaxations.
![Meenal Shashikant Joglekar ] R/of Worli, Mumbai Vs State Of Maharashtra, ] Through Information & Public Relations Dept. - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 103](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_3.png)
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing candidates' qualifications instead of deferring to the Selection Committee's discretion, and the aggrieved candidate's failure to challenge the adv....
Candidates who participated in a recruitment process should not be denied the opportunity to apply in subsequent processes due to age limits, especially when the previous process was cancelled.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
