Manoranjan Sahoo & others v. State of Odisha & others), W.P
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 W.P.(C) No.5513 of 2023 & W.P.(C) No.5516 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------- W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 Manoranjan Sahu & others ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & others ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Biplab P.B. Bahali, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General Mr. A. Behera, Advocate ________________________________________________________________ W.P.(C) No.5513 of 2023 Tapas Kumar Patra & another ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & others ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Tibrewal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General Mr. A. Behera, Advocate ________________________________________________________________ 2 W.P.(C) No.5516 of 2023 Maguni Sahoo & others ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & others ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Biplab P.B. Bahali, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General Mr. A. Behera, Advocate ________________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 27th June, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 (Manoranjan Sahoo & others vs. State of Odisha & others), W.P.(C) No.5513 of 2023 (Tapas Kumar Patra & another vs. State of Odisha & others) and W.P.(C) No.5516 of 2023 (Maguni Sahoo & others vs. State of Odisha & others) are combined for disposal by a common judgment in as much as these writ petitions are set out in identical facts and circumstances in order to seek a similar relief. 3 2. For the purpose of reference, the reliefs as urged in these writ petitions are noted below: (i) To declare the amendment made in the Odisha (Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022 by way of adding third proviso to Rule-2 by means of a notification dated 15.01.2022 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 as ultra vires to the Constitution and in consequence thereof, to quash the said notification dated 15.01.2022 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. (ii) To hold that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of relaxation of upper age limit as per the Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2022, Annexure-5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023, for the recruitment test of State Civil Services and particularly in respect of the post to be filled up during the advertisement years 2021, 2022 and 2023. (iii) To allow the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to apply for the posts in terms of the advertisement dated 22.06.2021 issued by the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, 4 Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 by issuing a corrigendum to the said advertisement. 3. The reliefs as extracted above are similarly phrased in all the writ petitions, but when the reference to the document has been made, such
Decision
reference has been made from the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 for sake of convenience. 4. The grievance of the petitioners in a nutshell is that all the writ petitioners are aspiring to be recruited as Sub Inspector of Police. As per the Service Rules, such recruitments are to be made in terms of the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021. The upper age limit for recruitment is 25 years. The petitioners have submitted that the upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police will be guided by the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, as amended from time to time. 5. By publication of the Notification dated 11.01.2022, Annexure-5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023, the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 was amended with effect from 11.01.2022. The second proviso to Rule-2 of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 provides as follows: 5 “Provided further that for advertisement made during the calendar years 2021, 2022 & 2023, the said upper age limit shall be 38 years.” The said benefit as extended by way of amendment called the Odisha Civil Services (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022 has been recalled in letter and spirit by the Notification dated 15.01.2022, Annexure-6 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023. The said Notification contains the Rules called Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Second Amendment Rules, 2022. The said amendment was carried out in the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 after the second proviso was incorporated by the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022. It reads as under: “Provided also that upper age limit as so fixed in the second proviso shall be applicable to those cases where the last date of application for recruitment to any post as per the advertisement issued is still not over as on the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022.” 6. Thus, the date on which the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Second Amendment Rules, 2022 has come into effect, is 11.01.2022. 7. It is an admitted position that the last date for application to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on contractual basis in Odisha Police 6 under the Home Department, Government of Odisha was on 15.07.2021 and hence, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022 whereby, as stated, it has been provided that for advertisement made during the calendar years 2021, 2022 & 2023, the said upper age limit shall be 38 years. 8. In this perspective fact, these three writ petitions have been filed questioning the amendment recalling the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022 as published by the Notification dated 11.01.2022, Annexure-5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023. 9. According to the petitioners, the opposite parties cannot take away the right that has been created in such an unceremonious manner and without giving proper explanation and hence, the said action by way of subsequent amendment carried out by the Notification dated 15.01.2022 Annexure-6 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 are unsustainable as such action of the State infringes the provisions of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 10. It has been further asserted by the petitioners that the said relaxation of age that was extended by way of the Notification dated 11.01.2022 had been so made, as for the pandemic situation, no 7 recruitment test could be held for the Government Service for the years 2020-2022 and in the meanwhile, lot of persons had crossed the maximum age limit for the posts, covered by the said Notification dated 11.01.2022. The Notification dated 15.01.2022 according to the petitioners, takes away the benefit that was granted to the persons who were deprived of appearing for the recruitment process for the pandemic situation. The amendment that had been carried out by the Notification dated 11.01.2022 was for relaxing the upper age limit. The upper age limit was made 38 years for the advertisement years 2021, 2022 & 2023 only. The subsequent amendment has, by way of clarification, taken away the effects of the said relaxation and hence, the subsequent amendment is unsustainable. 11. The petitioners have cited some parallels from the said recruitment processes of the Government of India for the posts of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Forces (CAFs), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoys in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2022. For recruitment for those posts, relaxation of three years had been granted by the Central Government and such relaxation clause was incorporated in the advertisement published in the month of October, 2022. Since there is no dispute regarding the eligibility criteria in this batch of the writ petitions, we will not dilate those aspects. The 8 petitioners have asserted that they are all eligible, according to the said advertisement dated 22.06.2021, Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023. 12. The petitioners have referred to Rule-2 of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 which reads as under: “2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any recruitment rule regulating the method of recruitment in Civil Services and/or Civil Posts in Pensionable establishment under the State Government, the upper age limit for entry into Government Service shall be 32 years except where a higher upper age limit has been prescribed for any such service or post. Provided further that if for any reason applications have not been invited by the authority competent to conduct examination during any particular year to fill up the vacancies of the year, the applicants, who would have been eligible if applications were invited during that year, shall be eligible to complete at the examination held in the subsequent year. This proviso will also apply to the cases where advertisements have already been issued for recruitment to services and posts under Government but the process of recruitment has not commenced.” 13. The said rule being Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India. 14. Even Rule-13 of the Combined Competitive Recruitment Examination for Group-B posts of Odisha Police Service, Odisha Prisons Service and Odisha Fire Service Orders, 2021 provides as follows: 9 “Rule-13. Relaxation: Where the Government are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of this order with respect to any class or category of persons.” It has been also contended by the petitioners that Rule-27 of the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021 lays down the power of relaxation in the following terms: “Rule-27. Relaxation: Where the Government, on a reference made by the D.G. & I.G. of Police or otherwise, are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of this Order with respect to any class or category of persons.” 15. Notwithstanding that it is a matter of policy, those changes have been incorporated in the principle recruitment rules by way of amendment, as noted above. If it is found upon scrutiny that the rule under challenge is illegal, irrational and contrary to the constitutional prescription, such rule may be interfered with, in order to ensure the equal treatment under the law [Article-14]. 16. Mr. B.P.B. Bahali and Mr. S. Tibrewal, learned counsel have appeared for the petitioners and placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in Directorate of Film Festivals and others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others: (2007) 4 SCC 737 in which case, the apex court has observed that the scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is restricted to whether it violates the fundamental 10 rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or whether the same is manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with the policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject matter of judicial review. The judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision. It examines chiefly the process by which the decision has been made. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied on the decision of the apex court in Delhi Development Authority & another vs. Joint Action Committee & others: (2008) 2 SCC 672. In that case, the law has been restated by the apex court as regards the scope of judicial review of the policy decision. It has been held by the apex court that the policy decision can be made subject to judicial review only on the following grounds: (a) If it is unconstitutional. (b) If it is de hors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations (c) If the delegate has acted beyond his power as delegated. (d) If the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger public policy. 11 18. Mr. Bahali, learned counsel has, in order to buttress the contentions of the petitioners referred to Laxman Dundappa Dhamaneker & another vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti & another: (2001) 8 SCC 378, in which decision the apex court has observed as follows: “It has been highlighted in the above quoted passage that if the Rules are silent on the subject provided the same is not inconsistent with the statutory Rules already framed.” 19. According to Mr. Bahali, learned counsel, in the present cases also the Rules made and published by the Notification dated 15.01.2022 are not consistent with the earlier Rules and hence, this Court should interfere with the said Notification containing the amendment rules. 20. Reference has been made to Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others: (2007) 5 SCC (L&S) 524, where the apex court had occasion to observe that any scheme, framed by the executive in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, if is found, violates the statutory rules or the constitutional provisions, will not be legally sustainable. (see A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies & Others: (2004) 7 SCC 112). It has been enunciated in Mahadeo Bhau Khilare as follows: “In terms of the said scheme, Steno typists, Typists of the IIIrd grade or similar posts of the Revenue Department could be absorbed in the State service. We would assume that the said 12 scheme was valid in law, although it was not in view of the decision of this Court in A.Umarani (supra). The appellants were appointed by Talathis as their assistants. They only used to assist the Talathis in their day-to-day work. They were never appointed as Talathis. No such post of Assistant to Talathis had been created and/or sanctioned by any competent authority. No recruitment rule their appointments were illegal. The State had also imposed a ban on appointment of such persons. In any event, they were appointed by the employees themselves to help them and not by any authority having the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” framed. Therefore, therefor was 21. In our considered view, the said proposition has no relevance in the present controversy. We are not concerned with any administrative instruction. From the Notification dated 15.01.2022, it is apparent that even the subsequent amendment has been carried out by the competent authority. The Notification dated 15.01.2022 contains a piece of the subordinate legislation (under proviso to Article-309). 22. Reference has been made to the apex court decision in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others: (2016) 8 SCC 389 and Life Insurance Corporation of India & others vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & another: (2016) 6 SCC 515. 23. In Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (supra), it has been observed that in absence of a rule, no benefit can be granted on the basis of the resolution passed by the Corporation. 24. Mr. Bahali and Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioners also pressed into service another decision of the apex court in B.N. 13 Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Mysore & Ors.: AIR 1966 SC 1942 where it has been held inter alia as under: “If there is a statutory rule or an Act on the matter, the executive must abide by that Act or Rule and it cannot in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution ignore or act contrary to that rule of the Act.” 25. Broadly stated, the basic challenge against the amendment contained in the Notification dated 15.01.2022 is that the said amendment had taken away the benefit that was declared by the amendment published by the Notification dated 11.01.2022. Such legislative recall is arbitrary and in contrast to the provision of Article- 14. It has been also contended that even in equity, the said recall is unsustainable. 26. The State has filed its reply and stated that all these writ petitions have been filed without making proper enquiry whether the Odisha Civil Services (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 was at all relevant or not and whether the advertisement dated 22.06.2021, Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 was issued under the said Rules. 27. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General having appeared for the State- opposite parties has brought to our notice at the outset to the clause relating to the upper age limit as prescribed in the said 14 recruitment advertisement, Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023. There cannot be any dispute that in the Clause-4 of the said recruitment advertisement, which stipulates as under: “4. Age: a) The candidates shall not be less than 21 years and not more than 25 years of age as on 01.01.2021. Note: Date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate such as Board of Secondary Education of Odisha, Cuttack/ Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi/Indian Counsel of Secondary Education, New Delhi or equivalent certificate issued by the concerned Board/Council will only be acceptable to the OPRB. The upper age limit is relaxable by 5 years in respect of SC/ ST/SEBC/Women candidates. For ex-servicemen, the relaxation shall be for the entire period of service rendered in the Armed Forces. However, a candidate can avail only one type of age relaxation as per rules.” b) 28. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are not entitled to any relaxation on the basis of their status as noted in the Clause-4(b) of the said advertisement. 29. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the age as prescribed by the advertisement. The upper age limit is apparently different from the upper age limit as prescribed by the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022. [see Rule-2 of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989]. 15 30. The State-opposite parties have clearly stated in their Counter Affidavit that the advertisement dated 22.06.2021, Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023 was issued in terms of Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021 which has been framed under Section-2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. Preamble to the said Order, 2021 reads as under: “In exercise of powers conferred by Section-2 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No.5 of 1861) and pending framing of regular recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government do hereby make the following order to regulate the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Odisha.” 31. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has quite emphatically stated that the Police Act, 1861 is a Central Act which comes under List- 1 of Schedule VII of Constitution of India. Under the Police Act, the power has been conferred on the State Government to regulate the service condition of the Police force by enacting the rules by the State Legislature. Section-2 of the Police Act, 1861 provides further as under: “2. Constitution of the force: The entire Police-establishment under a State Government shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be one Police-force and shall be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government. 16 Subject to the provisions of this Act, the pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police-force shall be such as may be determined by the State Government.” 32. It has been emphasized that the advertisement dated 22.06.2021 has not been issued under any Rule framed under the proviso to Article- 309. The petitioners cannot claim any benefit under Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 read with the amendment rules, as referred before. 33. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has stated that even otherwise also, the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022, which was gazetted on 15.01.2022 has nothing to do with the recruitment process which has commenced in terms of the said advertisement. 34. Already 1,34,000 candidates have applied for 477 posts of S.Is. and the scrutiny of the applications is complete. The admit cards for 2021 examination are ready, the question papers have been prepared and the examination is waiting to be conducted. 35. It has been contended by Mr. Parija that the said amendment is a policy decision of the State Government and it cannot be branded as arbitrary or illegal or discriminatory. 17 36. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has made assertions on the factual aspects, which are consistent with the averments of the Counter Affidavit filed by the State-opposite parties. 37. The petitioners are admittedly in the age group of 33-34 years. Even if the recruitment test were conducted in 2020 and if the COVID- 19 pandemic would not have cuater dislocation of the massive proportion, they would have been age barred since the upper age limit under the advertisement dated 22.06.2021 is 25 years of age as per the Police Order, 2021. 38. Having referred to Rule-2 of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989, Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has contended that in terms of the said Rule, the upper age limit is 32 years, which has not been accepted by the authority as the said Rules are not relevant. The authority has followed the rule that applies for the recruitment of the Sub-Inspectors. Explanation below Rule-2 emits more light and provides as under: “Explanation- The expression “Recruitment Rules” shall mean the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the recruitment to any Civil Service or Civil Post under the State and include executive orders and instructions issued by the competent authority for that purpose.” 18 39. From perusal of the Counter Affidavit filed by the State-opposite parties, what has surfaced is that the State Government has taken a policy decision to increase the upper age limit to 38 years by way of OCS Fixation of Upper Age Limit Amendment Rules, 2022 published in the gazette on 10.01.2022. 40. We have already reproduced that amendment for purpose of showing its extent. We have already noticed that the said provision has been amended by the subsequent amendment in the following manner: “Provided also that upper age limit as so fixed in the second proviso shall be applicable to those cases where the last date of application for recruitment to any post as per the advertisement issued is still not over as on the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022.” 41. It has been contended by Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General that the said policy decision as reflected in the Notification dated 15.01.2022 cannot be held arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. 42. So far as the upper age limit for recruitment to the post of Sub- Inspectors is concerned, for the time-being, the area is occupied by the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021, which has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section-2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. 19 43. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General has stoutly contended that proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision. To be more specific, in such areas proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India can be resorted where there is no regular rule governing the Government service, life of such rules framed under proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India is till the time, a regular rule is framed under the relevant statute. Further, the said proviso under Article-309 of the Constitution of India does not cast any limitation on the State Legislature to enact any rule with regard to conditions of any government service. 44. This interpretation of proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution is not disconcerting. Article-309 is a self-contained code for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or State. It only delegates the power to the President or the Governor and declares them as competent to regulate in the cases of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts until the provisions in that behalf is made by or under any Act by the appropriate legislature. It only succinctly lays that because of Article-309 of the Constitution, the Union Government or the 20 State Government are not divested of their powers of legislating a statute regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of a person appointed to the public services and posts in connections with the affairs of the Union or of any State. 45. However, it has been declared by the apex court in Chairman, B.S.N.L. & others vs. Mishri Lal & others: (2011) 14 SCC 739 by declaring that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are constitutional rules not rules made under a Statute. Hence, they have the same force as a statute has, though made by the executive. 46. From reading of Preamble of the Odishal Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspectors) Order, 2021, it would be apparent that pending framing of the regular recruitment rules under Article-309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government has made the said Order, 2021 in terms of the power conferred by Section-2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. 47. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been further asserted that even if three years relaxation in age is granted to the petitioners, they will not be able to garner any benefit, as the relaxation by three years would mean the upper age limit to be recalibrated at 28 years. All the petitioners according to the opposite parties have crossed that upper age limit even 21 before the COVID-19 pandemic hit our country. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 48. The petitioners have filed the rejoinder and reiterated their pleas in the writ petitions. According to them, the age relaxation should equally be applicable to all in order to reduce the adverse effects of the pandemic. 49. In para-8 of the rejoinder, the petitioners have asserted that para- 5(h) and para-10 of the Counter Affidavit are not entirely correct. If the recruitment tests were conducted in the year 2020 and if the COVID-19 pandemic would not have started, the petitioners No.2, 3, 5, 6 & similarly other eligible candidates would not have been age barred, as they would have come under five years age relaxation provided by the advertisement under Annexure-2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2721 of 2023, but it has not been explained how Clause-4(b), as reproduced would have been applicable to the present petitioners. That apart, there is no averment in this regard. 50. Mr. Bahali, learned counsel has placed reliance on a few other judgments which are on scrutiny found not relevant to the present context. For example, the Judgment dated 03.02.2023 delivered in W.P.(C) No.891 of 2021 by the apex court in Anushka Rengunthwar and others vs. Union of India and others may be referred. The said 22 judgment is concurred with a case where the accrued right was taken away arbitrarily. The apex court had occasion to observe in that case that the right which accrued or is vested could not have been taken away in the manner as has been resorted to, even though the Notification ex facie does not contemplate its retrospective operation. The rule against the retrospective construction does not apply to statute. It depends on its saving provision. In the case of Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), the rights were confirmed by the notification and such rights were affected by the subsequent modification. It had been held that the rules are to be allowed to operate without such retrospectively. 51. No such case has been made out by the petitioners that their casted right has been taken away by the State. It is unequivocally clear that the State Government has not declared any benefit in the form of relaxation of the upper age limit. So far as the irreversible persons who are aspiring to be recruited as the Sub-Inspectors under the Odishal Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service of Sub- Inspectors) Order, 2021. The said order does contain a different rule of upper age limit. Thus, the amendment as contained in the notification dated 11.01.2022 cannot be applied to an occupied area. 52. We have observed that even if the similar policy of relaxation is adopted by the State Government, that will not benefit the petitioners, in 23 as much as even before the pandemic, all the petitioners were age barred. Hence, there cannot be any relaxation in the cases of the petitioners on account of non-holding of recruitment test during the pandemic situation. 53. What has been contended in the rejoinder that the petitioners are entitled to get the relaxation under Clause-4(b) of the advertisement cannot be acceded to, as we do find that each of the petitioners has reached such age that even after granting relaxation, they will not come within the maximum age limit. 54. To be precise, we do not find any merit in this claim. Consequently, the writ petitions based on the said claim, are dismissed. 55. Interim orders as passed earlier are vacated. 56. There shall be no order as to costs. (S. Talapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Savitri Ratho, J. I agree Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th June, 2023/Subhasis Mohanty, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. I/C Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 08-Sep-2023 15:32:25