The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.186 of 2025 Paresh Kumar Ray and others ..... State of Odisha and others -versus- ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.08.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali, learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. S.K. Parhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. 3. The present review petition has been filed at the instance of the Writ Petitioners with a prayer to review the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3015 of 2025 and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to allow the Petitioners and other similarly situated persons to apply for the post as per the Advertisement dated 17.01.2025 by issuing a corrigendum to the said advertisement and pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Page 1 of 5. No.3015 of 2025 and batch of similar other writ petitions with a common prayer for grant of age relaxation to the Petitioners in the upper age limit upto 4 years in the advertisement at Annexure-1 and for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2-Odisha Police Recruitment Board, Bhubaneswar to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment to the post advertised under Annexure-1 to the writ applications. 5. The above noted writ petitions involving a common question of law based on common set of facts were taken together for hearing and vide order dated 24.07.2025 all the applications have been disposed of vide a common order. The common order dated 24.07.2025 at Annexure-1 reveals that the writ petitions were disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha that the State Government is agreeable to extend the age relaxation, so far the Sub-Inspector of Police are concerned, keeping in view the decision taken by the State Government in respect of the constables. In fact, a copy of the letter dated 24.07.2025 was produced before this Court during hearing which reveals that the Government of Odisha had taken a decision pursuant to order dated 14.07.2025 of this Court and, accordingly, the Government has agreed to grant age relaxation upto 3 years to each category of candidates for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and equivalent post conducted by OPRB. 6. On the basis of the statement made by the learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha as well as on the basis of the letter dated 24.07.2025, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2025 in terms of the said letter with certain consequential directions to be followed by the Opposite Parties. Page 2 of 5. 7. After disposal of the above noted batch of writ petitions vide common order dated 24.07.2025, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present review petition with a prayer to review order dated 24.07.2025 on a specific ground that although the rule does not permit any special age relaxation to the women category candidates belonging to the General Category, however, in the impugned advertisement, they have been granted such age relaxation at par with the candidates belonging to the reserve category i.e. S.C. & S.T. category candidates. He further submitted that granting such benefits to the woman category candidates by virtue of the impugned advertisement is in violation and dehors the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. As such, it was alleged that the advertisement for recruitment to the post of S.I. of Police is bad to the aforesaid extent. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26084 of 2024 and batch of the writ petitions decided vide common judgment dated 17.12.2024, which was confirmed in writ appeal No.335 of 2025 by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.08.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the above noted batch of writ petitions have been disposed of vide a common order dated 24.07.2025 at Annexure-1 to the present review petition. He further contended that a common prayer was made in all the writ petitions with regard to grant of age relaxation in the upper age limit. Therefore, on the basis of the decision taken by the State Government, such writ petitions were allowed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the State contended that the present review petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should not be Page 3 of 5. entertained which otherwise also would cause delay in concluding the recruitment process to the post of S.I. of Police. He also raised the question of maintainability of the review petition as the same does not fall within the parameters to entertain a review petition against the order passed by this Court. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 24.07.2025, this Court observes that a common issue that was involved in all the writ petitions was with regard to the grant of age relaxation in the upper age limit to the candidates. Such relaxation was claimed on the basis of a decision taken earlier by the State Government in respect of the constables. In course of hearing of the matter, the learned Advocate General, on instruction, submitted that the State Government is agreeable to extend such relaxation in favour of the candidates aspiring to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and, accordingly, the letter dated 24.07.2025 was produced before this Court. Basing upon the statement of the learned Advocate General as well as the letter dated 24.07.2025 of the State Government, the above noted writ petitions were disposed of vide a common order dated 24.07.2025. So far as the present Review Petitioners are concerned, they were Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.4094, 4512, 3956, 7667 & 3703 of 2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioners are specifically challenging the age relaxation granted to the women belonging to the General Category as per the advertisement, which is contrary to the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. Further, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid point was never specifically argued at the time of hearing of the batch of writ Page 4 of 5. petitions and the order dated 24.07.2025 was passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. It also appears that in the meantime a corrigendum has also been issued on 31.07.2025 pursuant to order dated 24.07.2025. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court, while disposing of the review petition, grants liberty to the Petitioners to approach this Court afresh by raising the aforesaid issue specifically by filing a fresh writ petition, if so advised. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the review petition stands disposed of. Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Aug-2025 12:42:16 Page 5 of 5.