Can a reasonable job expectation override guidelines? Orissa High Court rules on age limit of 32 for ‘Sikshya Sahayak’ posts

‘Incapable of practical enforcement’

• The issue raised in this writ is no longer res integra (an untouched matter) and stands squarely covered by the order passed in earlier case, wherein it has been held that the prescription of the upper age limit of 32 years under the resolution dated December 26, 2016, was in conformity with the statutory rules, namely, the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation Of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, governing the field at the relevant time.
• It has been categorically observed that unless the statutory rules fixing the upper age limit are themselves put to challenge and declared invalid, no direction can be issued to prescribe an age limit inconsistent with such rules.
• It was further observed that a mere expectation on the part of a candidate, even if based upon earlier notifications or past practice, does not confer any enforceable right to challenge a subsequent notification.
• In the present case, the recruitment process pertains to the year 2016-2017 and considerable time has elapsed thereafter.
• The relief sought by the petitioners has thus become academic in nature and incapable of practical enforcement.
• No justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned resolution or to grant the reliefs as prayed for.

Case

• The petitioners were qualified with a BEd and cleared the Odisha Teachers Eligibility Test (OTET), claiming eligibility for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak under the prevailing guidelines, which prescribed the upper age limit as 42 years from the scheme’s inception in 2000 until August 2013.
• Subsequently, the state government issued a resolution reducing the upper age limit to 32 years and prescribing minimum marks in graduation.
• Afterward, advertisements were published to fill vacancies, many of which related to earlier years when the upper age limit was 42 years.
• By application of the said resolution, the petitioners became ineligible to participate in the selection process.

• Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the resolution and the consequential recruitment process.
• The petitioners had argued that despite the availability of vacancies and earlier observations of the court regarding fixation of the upper age limit at 42 years, the state government altered the eligibility criteria, thereby depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to participate in the recruitment process.
• It was further contended by the petitioners that the resolution suffered from arbitrariness inasmuch as it retrospectively altered the eligibility conditions governing vacancies pertaining to earlier years.
• It was further submitted that the reduction of the upper age limit to 32 years and prescription of minimum marks in graduation is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.