CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an SEBC-category candidate challenging the refusal of Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd (OHPCL) to accept his application for the post of management trainee (human resources).
The judgement was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi on January 15. The dispute arose from an advertisement dated November 7, 2025, issued by OHPCL for recruitment to the posts of management trainees (MTs). Under Clause (F) of the advertisement, the age eligibility for MTs was fixed at 21 to 32 years, with relaxation of five years for SC/ST/SEBC/Women candidates and 10 years for persons with disabilities. But, no vacancy was earmarked for the SEBC category.
The petitioner, a BBA graduate with MBA qualification, belonged to the SEBC category and applied for the post of MT (HR) under the unreserved category, claiming eligibility on the basis of age relaxation provided in the advertisement. OHPCL rejected his application, contending that since no post was reserved for SEBC candidates, the benefit of age relaxation could not be extended to such candidate applying against unreserved post.
The court noted that the petitioner was 35 years and five months old as on the relevant cut-off date, while the maximum age limit for unreserved candidates was 32 years. Justice Panigrahi observed that 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.
Emphasising judicial restraint in service matters, he held that formulation of recruitment policy, including the fixation of age limits, categorywise vacancies and grant of relaxation, squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the employer, and constitutional courts should refrain from interference.
Concluding that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration against the unreserved category and could not invoke SEBC relaxation without an enabling provision, Justice Panigrahi held that there was no merit in the writ petition.