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.

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 contemplated recruitment to the said post through the Odisha Staff Selection Commission; however, such process did not culminate in final appointments. Taking note of the grievances of unemployed Agriculture Graduates, the State Government took a policy decision in the year 1998, whereby the power of recruitment to the post of Junior Agriculture Officer was withdrawn from the Staff Selection Commission and restored to the respective Directors, with a clear stipulation that recruitment would be made following the earlier practice, namely, batch-wise clearance. The said decision was notified vide Government Resolution dated 28.08.1998.

Earlier, the Petitioner, along with similarly situated candidates, had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.634(C) of 1997 challenging an advertisement issued in the year 1996. The said Original Application, along with analogous cases, was disposed of by the Tribunal on 21.12.1999 with the observation that, whenever steps were taken for filling up the posts of Junior Agriculture Officer in accordance with policy, the cases of the applicants could be considered, subject to applicable norms. Thereafter, on 22.05.2000, the State Government took a decision to fill up 76 vacant posts of Junior Agriculture Officer and directed the competent authorities to complete the selection process by the end of June, 2000. According to the Petitioner, despite such decision, 73 out of the 76 vacancies were filled up by deploying Junior Soil Conservation Officers on what was described as a deputation/adjustment basis, purportedly to accommodate surplus staff, leaving only three posts unfilled. The Petitioner contends that such deployment was contrary to the Odisha Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1980 (as amended), which prescribe the modes of recruitment and do not contemplate filling up of vacancies in the post of Junior Agriculture Officer by deputation.

Aggrieved by non-consideration of his case against the remaining vacancies, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.601(C) of 2001 seeking a direction to consider his candidature. During the pendency of the said Original Application, an advertisement dated 04.02.2011 was issued for appointment to the post of Junior Horticulture Officer without providing age relaxation. Alleging that such denial of age relaxation was contrary to earlier observations of the Tribunal, the Petitioner filed another Original Application, being O.A. No.485(C) of 2011. Both the Original Applications were heard together and were dismissed by the learned Tribunal by a common order dated 15.03.2017.

3. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned common order dated 15.03.2017 is unsustainable as the learned Tribunal failed to consider Rule 5 of th