JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the Advertisement issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission inviting applications in the prescribed form for admission to the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II. The said Advertisement was issued in accordance with Rule 5 of the Orissa Judical Service Rules, 1994 bearing Advertisement No. 10 of 2003-2004, vide Annexure-3, solely on the ground that the upper age limit stipulated in the said Advertisement is contrary to the decisions of this Court and causes hardship to the petitioner and many others similarly situated. According to the petitioner, no Advertisement was made for recruitment to Orissa Judical Service, Class II for the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 causing hardship to many candidates who intended to appear in such recruitment examination. Challenging the said inaction of the State Government, a Writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was filed before this Court, which was registered as 2003 (II) OLR 586, W.P. (C) No. 4613 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 29.10.2003 observing as follows :
” We accordingly direct that the Government will in exercise of their powers under Rule 30 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 relax the provisions of Rule 10 of the said Rules so that the intending candidates who have crossed the maximum age of 32 years on account of delay in holding the recruitment examination to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II and the intending candidates who do not have three year’s practice at the Bar are eligible to take the recruitment examination”.
2. It is pertinent to mention that Rule 10 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 stipulates that in order to be eligible for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, Class II, a candidate shall not be less than 21 years of age practice at the Bar for at least three years. But then the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247, held that in the light of the experience gained, the need for an applicant to be an Advocate at least for three years should be done away with. In consonance with the observations made by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the aforesaid *W.P. (C) No. 4613/03, an order was issued by the Law Department of the Government of Orissa on 5th of November, 2003 stipulating that Government were satisfied that there was acute shortage of officers in the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class II as no recruitment had been made during the last two years to fill up the vacancies and that Government in consultation with the High Court of Orissa were satisfied that it was necessary and expedient to relax some of the provisions contained in Rules 10 and 12 of the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II Rules, 1994 and therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 30 of the said Rules, the State Government relaxed the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, Sub-clause (d) of Clause (ii) of the Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 and Clause (v) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules for the ensuing recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II and further stipulated as follows :
“(i) The upper age limit prescribed in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, Sub-clause (d) of Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the said rules is relaxed by 2 (two) years making the upper age limit 34 years and 39 years respectively;
(ii) Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the said rules requiring three years of Bar practice as an Advocate shall be dispensed with; and
(iii) Clause (v) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the said rules requiring certificate in support of practice at Bar from the concerned District Judge shall be dispensed with”.
3. According to the petitioner, the upper age limit should have been 35 years as on 1st of August, 2003 and not 34 years as stipulated in the Advertisement and as such the same should be directed to be suitably modified.
4. The main contention of Mr. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the State Government should have relaxed the upper age limit by three years by making the same 35 and not 34.
5. A reading of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid 2003 (II) OLR 586, W.P. (C) No. 4613 of 2003 reveals that this Court did not direct the State Government to fix any particular age as the upper age limit. What this Court had observed was that the Government in consultation with the High Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, could relax any of the provisions of the Rules, with respect to any class or category of persons or posts and directed that Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 30 of the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II Rules, 1994, would relax the provisions of Rule 10 of the said Rules so that the intending candidates who had crossed the age of thirty two years on account of delay in holding the recruitment examination would be eligible to take the recruitment examination. In consonance with the said direction, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court and being satisfied that no recruitment has been made during the last two years, enhanced the upper age limit to 34 years in place of 32 years and to 39 years in place of 37 years respectively. The said decision of the Government was clearly reflected in the order issued by the Law Department on 5th of November, 2003.
6. A perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition clearly reveals that the last recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II was made in the year 1999-2000. Thereafter no recruitment was made during the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The order relaxing the upper age limit was passed by the Government on 5th of November, 2003 and the Advertisement for recruitment for the year 2003-2004 was issued. Thus for all acts and purposes, there was only two years’ gap and not three years. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, fixation of a cut-off date is permissible under law and the High Court should be slow in interfering with such cut-off date unless it is satisfied that the same has been done on extraneous reasons and /or mala fide. Both the ingredients are lacking in the present case. The cut-off date may create inconvenience to some, but then the same cannot be a ground to be interfered with. More so, the Advertisement in question was issued in consonance with the order dated 5th of November, 2003 of the Law Department. The said order which was the basis of the Advertisement has not been challenged in this writ petition.
7. On a cumulative assessment of all the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, we are not persuaded with the arguments advanced by Mr. Palit and decline to interfere in the matter in exercise of our Writ Jurisdiction.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
I agree.