Cuttack: Orissa high court has ruled that a candidate belonging to a reserved category cannot claim age relaxation while applying for an unreserved post.“The migration of a candidate belonging to a reserved category to the unreserved category is permissible only if such migration is expressly authorised by the applicable recruitment rules or by the terms of the recruitment advertisement,” Justice S K Panigrahi observed in his judgment on Jan 15.
Where the notification does not contemplate such migration, “the benefit of age relaxation or other category-based concessions cannot be invoked to circumvent the prescribed eligibility conditions applicable to unreserved posts”, Justice Panigrahi ruled, while considering a petition challenging the refusal of Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd (OHPCL) to accept the candidature of an SEBC applicant for the post of management trainee (HR).The petitioner, an MBA candidate belonging to the SEBC category, had questioned OHPCL’s decision to reject his application submitted in response to an advertisement dated Nov 7, 2025.OHPCL had invited applications for management trainees (MTs) prescribing an age limit of 21 to 32 years and provided for relaxation of five years for SC/ST/SEBC/women candidates and 10 years for persons with disabilities. However, no vacancy was earmarked for the SEBC category.The petitioner, aged 35 years and 5 months on the relevant cut-off date, applied for the post under the unreserved category, claiming the benefit of SEBC age relaxation. OHPCL rejected the application, asserting that age relaxation could not be extended when no post was reserved for the category.Reiterating settled legal principles, Justice Panigrahi underlined that “the formulation of recruitment policy, including the fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and grant of relaxation, squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the employer”, adding that constitutional courts should refrain from interference.The court further noted that the advertisement “unequivocally discloses that no vacancy has been earmarked for the SEBC category in the concerned cadre”, and therefore the petitioner could not “as a matter of right, claim the benefit of age relaxation applicable to SEBC candidates”.Finding no merit in the challenge, the court held that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration against the unreserved category and dismissed the petition.
