No Right To Age Relaxation Without Reservation: Orissa High Court Dismisses SEBC Candidate’s Plea Against Rejection From UR Post

"Age Relaxation Is Ancillary To Reservation, Cannot Be Claimed As Independent Right" – In a significant ruling on the limits of reservation-linked benefits in public employment, the High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an online application by a SEBC candidate on grounds of overage. The petitioner had applied for the post of Management Trainee (HR) under the unreserved category, despite exceeding the age limit of 32 years prescribed for UR candidates. He claimed entitlement to age relaxation by virtue of his SEBC status, even though no SEBC vacancies were earmarked in the recruitment advertisement.

The Court, in a judgment authored by Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, held that “in the absence of any post reserved for the SEBC category, the Petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim the benefit of age relaxation applicable to SEBC candidates”. The judgment underscores that age relaxation is “not a standalone right but a concession ancillary to the core concept of reservation”, and its availability is contingent upon express statutory or advertisement-based authorization.

“Migration of Reserved Category Candidates to Unreserved Posts With Relaxation Is Not Inherent Right” – Court Applies SC's Union of India v. Sajib Roy

The Court’s primary observation hinged on the interplay between the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies Act and Rules, and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, examining whether a reserved category candidate can claim age relaxation when applying for a post not earmarked for their category.

The petitioner, an MBA graduate belonging to the SEBC category, had applied pursuant to OHPC Advertisement No. OHPC: HQ: HRD: RECTT:02/2025 dated 07.11.2025. The recruitment was for Management Trainees in various disciplines, including four MT(HR) posts — three unreserved and one reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST). The petitioner, aged 35 years and 5 months as of the cut-off date (01.08.2025), claimed entitlement to the five-year age relaxation extended to SEBC candidates under Clause F(iii) of the advertisement, though he applied under the UR category.

The High Court rejected this claim, holding that the “migration” of a reserved category candidate to the unreserved category with age relaxation is impermissible in the absence of an enabling clause. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943, the Court noted:

“The migration of a candidate belonging to a reserved category to the Unreserved category is permissible only if such migration is expressly authorized by the applicable recruitment rules or by the terms of the recruitment advertisement.”

The Court emphasized that permitting SEBC candidates to compete in the UR category while availing relaxation would amount to hostile discrimination against other UR candidates, violating equality norms under Articles 14 and 16.

Background and Legal Issues

The petitioner argued that the OHPC advertisement, while not reserving any MT(HR) post for SEBC, did not bar SEBC candidates from applying under the UR category and expressly extended age relaxation to SEBC candidates. He cited the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119, to argue that benefits like age relaxation are merely aids to reservation and do not compromise merit-based competition in the open category.

However, the Court distinguished the present case by reiterating that Jitendra Kumar Singh involved a factual matrix where recruitment rules expressly permitted such relaxations even in UR competition, whereas in this case, no such enabling provision existed. The Court firmly applied the Sajib Roy ratio that unless such migration is expressly authorized, it cannot be presumed.

“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. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, would refrain from interfering with the same,” the Court added, underlining the limited scope of judicial review in recruitment matters.

Rejection by Online Portal Was Not Arbitrary

The Court also upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s online application as a mechanical, rule-based decision. The portal had auto-rejected the submission based on the petitioner’s declared date of birth and the maximum age limit applicable to UR candidates, which was 32 years without relaxation.

“The online application portal automatically applies the prescribed age eligibility criteria to all applicants on the basis of their date of birth, declared category, and the category-wise vacancies notified in the advertisement,” observed the Court, noting that discretionary application of relaxation in such a system would be unworkable and discriminatory.

No Relief Possible Without Enabling Clause

In closing, the Court reinforced the legal position that "eligibility criteria, including age relaxation, must be read in conjunction with the reservation matrix notified in the advertisement", and courts cannot re-engineer recruitment frameworks in equity when no statutory or contractual right exists.

“If the relief sought by the Petitioner were to be granted, it would result in hostile and unconstitutional discrimination among candidates competing in the Unreserved category,” the Court held, dismissing the writ petition and vacating all interim orders.

Date of Decision: 15th January 2026