Cuttack: The Orissa high court has dismissed a writ petition, filed in 2017, challenging the state govt’s decision to revise upper age limit eligibility criteria for recruitment of Sikshya Sahayaks, (contractual teaching assistants), holding that the changes were in line with statutory rules.Justice Chittaranjan Dash on March 20, uploaded on March 23, upheld the notification, dated Dec 26, 2016, issued by the school and mass education department, which reduced the upper age limit from 42 years to 32 and introduced a minimum requirement of 50% marks at the graduation level.The petitioner, a B.Ed-qualified candidate who had cleared the Odisha Teachers Eligibility Test, had argued that the revised criteria unfairly disqualified candidates who were eligible under earlier norms. The petitioner further argued that the upper age limit had consistently been 42 years since the scheme’s inception in 2000 and that applying the revised limit to earlier vacancies was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Right to Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution.The plea also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, asserting that candidates had a right to be considered under the previous guidelines.Rejecting these arguments, Justice Dash noted that the 2016 notification was consistent with the Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989.On the question of legitimate expectation, the judge held that “a mere expectation on the part of a candidate, even if founded upon the pattern of earlier notifications or past practice, does not confer any enforceable right so as to challenge a subsequent notification issued by the competent authority.”Justice Dash further pointed out that the recruitment process was conducted in 2016–2017 and that a significant amount of time had elapsed since then, making the relief sought impractical.Describing the plea as having become “academic in nature and incapable of practical enforcement,” the court found no merit in the challenge.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court declining to interfere with the impugned notification or the recruitment process carried out under it.“Unless the statutory rules fixing the upper age limit are themselves put to challenge and declared invalid, no direction can be issued to the authorities to prescribe an age limit inconsistent with such rules,” Justice Dash observed.
