The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.245 of 2025 Sri Ranjit Kumar Meher …. Appellant Represented by Adv.– Ms. Sujata Jena, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Represented by Adv.– Ms. A. Dash, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.04.2025 03. 1. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector in terms of the advertisement published on 30th July, 2021 despite having not offered the candidature because of the disqualification. The single Bench dismissed the writ petition solely on the basis of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 13th February, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.2689 of 2017. 2. Previously, the appellant offered his candidature pursuant to the advertisement made in the year 2004 for filling up the Page 1 of 6 identical posts, but was not favourably considered by the authority. The approach to this Court could not yield favourable result and ultimately, the appellant filed the special leave petition before the Supreme Court and after the leave having granted, the said Civil Appeal No.2689 of 2017 was registered. Undisputedly, the Civil Appeal was ultimately dismissed by the apex Court on 13th February, 2017 with the categorical finding that the appellant, admittedly, does not possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules. 3. The counsel for the appellant fervently submits that the appellant possesses all the eligible qualifications required for the said post, but because of the age bar, he could not offer his candidature. It is further submitted that the findings returned in the judgment dated 13th February, 2017 by the Supreme Court is factually incorrect and, therefore, no credence should be given thereto. 4. It is undeniable that the appellant has crossed the age limit set forth in the advertisement for filling up the said post in terms of the provisions contained in Odisha Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Page 2 of 6 Rules, 1983 as amended from time to time and lastly in the year 1997. 5. We invited the attention of the counsel for the appellant to place before us any provision under the said Rules which confers power upon the authority to relax the age for the purpose of recruitment to the aforesaid post. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that such statutory Rules does not contain any such powers, but she invited the attention of the Court to an advertisement published for the said post in the year 2004 wherein the power to relax the age bar was duly mentioned. According to the counsel for the appellant, if such power was reserved in an earlier advertisement, there is no justification that such power cannot be exercised by the authority in a subsequent advertisement. 6. We are unable to accept such proposition for the simple reason that the recruitment process is undertaken by a statutory authority on the basis of the Rules framed in this regard. The authorities cannot act beyond the circumference of the provisions of the statute nor should be permitted to transgress its peripheral. The authority must act within the precinct of the statutory provisions and cannot travel beyond it. At times, the authority may Page 3 of 6 indicate the relaxation of certain conditions provided the provisions in the statutory Rules do not expressly forbid the same. If the provision contained in the statutory Rules forbears the authority to go beyond the scope thereof, even if such power is assumed, the same is contrary to law and, therefore, the authority shall not be permitted to take recourse thereto. The mistake committed at one point of time shall not be permitted to be committed perpetually nor the writ Court should issue a writ of mandamus upon the authority to commit the mistake or to act contrary to law. 7. In absence of any express powers conferred in the statutory Rules, the authority cannot assume such power and, therefore, we do not find any justification in the stand of the appellant that there is no fetter on the part of the authority to relax the age barriers. Even the advertisement for filling up the said posts published in the year 2021 does not contain any such stipulation that the power is reserved upon the authority to relax the age bar and, therefore, in absence thereof, the participant or a prospective participant cannot compel the authorities to do a thing not contemplated in the advertisement. Page 4 of 6 8. So far as the second point is concerned, we do not feel that it needs any further discussion for the simple reason that in a judgment dated 13th February, 2017, the apex Court unequivocally observed that the appellant does not possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules and, therefore, even for arguments sake, the contention of the appellant is accepted that the authority can relax the age barriers, yet he cannot succeed having not acquired the eligible qualification prescribed under the Rules. 9. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that such observation is factually incorrect cannot be looked into as every observations made by the apex Court on facts is binding on the litigant in all the subsequent litigations nor the High Court or the courts at the District level can take a contrary view. 10. In the event, the factual error is perceived in the judgment and/or the order passed by the Court, the remedy of such litigant is to approach the same Court inviting the attention of the learned Judges in that regard before such event fades from the memory (see State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivash Nayak, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1249). Page 5 of 6 11. The observation made by the apex Court is sacrosanct so far as the facts are concerned unless the same is reviewed and/or modified by the same Court. It is not open to the High Court or the District Courts to take a contrary view in this regard. Furthermore, the apex Court expressly observed that there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules which would also be considered in a pragmatic manner to mean that if the Rule is silent on the exercise of power by the authorities to relax any of the conditions of the recruitment, the authorities cannot usurp such powers. 12. From whatever angle we look at, do not find the ultimate decision taken by the single Bench to be infirm and/or illegal. 13. The appeal is thus dismissed. No costs. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge (K.R. Mohapatra) S.K. Guin/PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 18:40:49 Page 6 of 6