“COVID-19 Stalled Careers”: High Court Grants 3-Year Age Relaxation for Fireman Recruitment

“The power to relax rules is not merely ornamental; non-exercise of such discretion in appropriate circumstances, especially when parity demands it, amounts to arbitrariness”— In a seminal ruling the High Court of Orissa, comprising Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, directed the State Government to grant a one-time three-year age relaxation to seven qualified candidates for the post of Fireman and Fireman Driver, citing the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the principles of equality.

“The COVID Gap: Vacancies Since 2015, Yet No Recruitment”

The controversy arose from an advertisement dated August 29, 2023, inviting applications for 826 posts of Fireman and 150 posts of Fireman Driver. The advertisement fixed the upper age limit at 25 years, based on the Odisha Fire Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Firemen) Rules, 2021.

The Petitioners, represented by Advocate Mr. Rajib Rath, challenged this cap, arguing that the posts had been lying vacant since 2015. They contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, no recruitment drives were conducted for nearly eight years, depriving an entire generation of aspirants of their opportunity to compete. They sought parity with the Odisha Civil Services (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Amendment Rules, 2022, which had raised the general upper age limit to 38 years for other services.

“Rule 30 is Not Ornamental: Power to Relax Must Be Exercised”

The State, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Mr. P.K. Panda, argued that the 2021 Rules were framed under a specific statute (Section 26(2) of the Odisha Fire Service Act, 1993) and thus had an overriding effect over general civil service amendments. They maintained that the age limit of 18-25 years was statutory and binding.

However, Justice Satapathy focused on Rule 30 of the 2021 Rules, which explicitly vests the State Government with the power to relax any rule in the "interest of public service." The Court observed that the State cannot selectively apply relaxation for some uniformed services while denying it to others.

“Parity in Public Employment: The Nagen Bhoi Precedent”

The Court drew heavy reliance on its earlier judgment in Nagen Bhoi v. State of Odisha, where a 4-year age relaxation was granted for Police Constables due to similar pandemic-induced delays. The Court noted that the State had accepted the Nagen Bhoi verdict and had even conceded to a 3-year relaxation in subsequent Writ Appeals (W.A. No. 3321 of 2024) for Constables and Sepoys.

The Bench held that denying similar benefits to Fireman aspirants would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, creating an unjustifiable classification between similarly situated candidates.

While the Court acknowledged the State's administrative domain, it ruled that equity demanded relief. Since the Petitioners had participated in the selection process under interim orders, and only seven of them had successfully qualified based on merit, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach.

The High Court directed the State to extend a three-year age relaxation specifically to the seven qualified petitioners as a "one-time special measure." If these candidates fall within the relaxed age bracket, the State must appoint them against existing vacancies within two months. The Court clarified that this order is specific to the facts and shall not be treated as a binding precedent for reopening the entire selection process.

Date of Decision: 28/11/2025