Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Purohit vs State Of Odisha & Others on 13 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) Nos.3792, 3989 & 3990 of 2013, W.P.(C)
No.17908,18283 & 18285 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
..................
WPC(OAC) No.3792 of 2013
Prafulla Kumar Purohit .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along
with Mr. D.N. Rath.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
WPC(OAC) No.3989 of 2013
Bulu Panigrahi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along
with Mr. D.N. Rath.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
WPC(OAC) No.3990 of 2013
Netrananda Satapathy .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
// 2 //
For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along
with Mr. D.N. Rath.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
W.P.(C) No.17908 of 2023
Sudhir Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
W.P.(C) No.18283 of 2023
Sambhuprasad Biswal .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
-AND-
W.P.(C) No.18285 of 2023
Kodanda Bhusan Selma .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu.
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC.
Page 2 of 34
// 3 //
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:31.07.2023 and Date ofJudgment:13.10.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. All these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the
advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Bolangir on 04.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible
candidates for engagement as Village Agricultural Worker
(VAW) on contractual basis in the Revenue District of
Bolangir. Further prayer has been made to quash the order
passed by the Director of Agriculture & Food Production on
25.10.2013 in rejecting the claim for relaxation of the age
and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 to issue a corrigendum in
terms of the order passed by this Court in its judgment
reported in 2008(2) OLR (Sudhir Kumar Sahu vs. State
of Odisha) and subsequent order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.18594/2008. Since the issue involved in these
batch of writ petitions is identical, all the matters were
heard analogously and disposed of by the present common
order.
// 4 //
2. It is the case of the Petitioners in all these Writ
Petitions that Director of Agricultural and Food Production
when issued an advertisement on 18.05.2008 inviting
applications to fill up vacant posts of VAW and lady VAW
on contractual basis in different districts of the State, the
same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285
of 2008. This Court vide its order dtd.14.08.2008, while
quashing the advertisement disposed of the writ petition
inter alia with the following order:-
"We are not on the question whether the petitioner will be
selected or not. The entire dispute revolves round the
question whether the Rules framed by the Government and
notified on 11th February, 1981 and amended thereafter,
are applicable to the candidates for appointment against the
aforesaid post on contractual basis. True, the appointment
is contractual, but in the contractual appointment also it is
expected that the recruitment authority should follow the
rules that have been framed by the Government. The
counter affidavit absolutely does not meet our query; on the
other hand, the Joint Director has tried to justify the
violation of the Rules. However, when the Rules framed by
the State Government provide for giving preference to the fit
candidates for the post of VAW/LVAW that is bound to be
followed, be it regular or contractual. The authorities cannot
go beyond the scope and ambit of the Rules with a plea that
appointments are not regular but contractual because in the
present days scenario, regular appointments have been
exception; contractual appointments are the rule of the day.
The rules framed by the Government, if not followed by its
own authorities, will ultimately lead to conclusion, the
advantage of which should be taken by the dishonest
officials and unscrupulous candidates. In a case of similar
nature (W.P.(C) No.7833/2007 disposed of on 8.7.2008) this
Court while dealing with the provision of Section 3(d) of the
O.R.V Act has observed that the provision of the O.R.V. Act
is also applicable in respect of contractual employment in
the Government or in the Governmental organizations, as
the case may be.
We are satisfied that the rules that have been framed by the
Government, have not been followed and the advertisement
has not been made in consonance with the provisions of the
aforesaid Rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the
// 5 //
Rules framed by the Government, i.e., Recruitment and
Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 and
amended vide notification dated 24.06.1991, are applicable
to the cases of recruitment of VAW/LVAW on contractual
basis.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The advertisement
in Annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid extent. The O.Ps
are directed to issue a corrigendum to this effect and fix the
last date of application afresh".
2.1. It is contended that without following the direction of
this Court so issued on 14.08.2008, when fresh
advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture of respective districts inviting applications to
fill-up the vacant post of VAW on contractual basis instead
of issuing a corrigendum to the advertisement dtd.
05.12.2008, the matter was again challenged before this
Court in various writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008
and batch. All those Writ Petitions were disposed of vide
order dtd.03.02.2012. The order passed by this Court from
Paragraphs-6 to 9 are quoted hereunder:-
"6. By the aforesaid order this Court while quashing the
advertisement directed to issue a corrigendum to the
advertisement and refix the last date of application. As per
Annexure-A/3 and B/3 the opposite party-State has taken
decision that if the marks secured by a candidate of +2
Science Branch and mark secured by candidate in the field of
agriculture is equal then candidates having +2 Vocational
Course in the field of agriculture shall be preferred. This in
our view, is not the spirit of the Rule. It is admitted at the Bar
that for the selection to the posts of VAW no
selection/recruitment test is contemplated or held. The only
basis of selection is the percentage of marks obtained by the
candidates in the +2 Vocational course in the field of
Agriculture of +2 Science or Intermediate Science. Although
all the above categories of candidates are eligible to apply as
per Rule-4 of the Rules, the proviso to Rule-4, which is in the
nature or an exception to the general provision, makes it clear
that candidates who have passed +2 vocational course in
agriculture shall be preferred to the other categories. This
// 6 //
means that after candidates having qualification of +2
vocational in agriculture are appointed in order of their merit
(marks) in such course the balance vacancies, if any, shall be
filled up by candidates having +2 Science/Intermediate
Science qualification. The nature of work of a VAW being
related to agriculture, Rule-4 along with its proviso cannot be
susceptible to any other interpretation. The advertisement
(Annexure-2), particularly, Clause-4 thereof pertaining to
'Method of Selection' is therefore contrary to the Rules.
7. From the case of Sudhir Kumar Sahu till this case
there is no improvement on the part of the State Authority to
bring a rationality in the process of selection of VAW rather
than bent upon to circumvent the rule which is prevailing and
in vogue for which we have express our displeasure in the
aforesaid judgment of Sudhir Kumar Sahu which is quoted in
the aforesaid paragraph. Accordingly, we have no hesitation
to say that the advertisement in Annexure-2 is contrary to the
1981 Rules as amended up-to-date and accordingly the same
is quashed.
8. We are constrained to observe that the action of the
Secretary, Agriculture is not only contrary to the rule but also
contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.10285 of 2008. While we propose to impose heavy cost
on the officers at fault, but on the submission of the learned
State Counsel no cost is imposed on them. We hope that the
officers shall be careful in future while dealing with the court
matter.
9. So far as the age of the petitioners in respect of
W.P.(C) Nos.18942 of 2008, 18594 of 2008, 18943 of 2008,
18492 of 2008 and 113 of 2009 is concerned, it is open for
the petitioners to approach the authorities in this regard, who
shall consider the same looking to the fact that advertisement
to the post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen
years.
2.2. It is contended that without following the order
passed on 14.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008 as well as
the order dtd.03.02.2012 so passed in W.P.(C)
No.18942/2008 and batch, when a fresh advertisement was
issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on 04.10.2013
inviting applications to fill up the self-same post of VAW on
contractual basis, all these writ petitions were filed
challenging the advertisement as well as the order passed
// 7 //
by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production in
refusing to relax the upper age limit in respect of the
candidates of Bolangir District, who had earlier approached
this Court.
2.3. It is contended that the Tribunal while issuing notice
of the matter vide order dtd.09.12.2013 passed an interim
order by restraining the Opposite Parties not to provide
appointment to the selected candidates in terms of the
advertisement issued on 04.10.2013 without leave of the
Tribunal. The order dtd.09.12.2013 is quoted hereunder:-
"The applicant, who has applied for his engagement as
against VAW pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2008
have filed this O.A with a prayer to quash the advertisement
dtd.4.10.2013 (Annexure-5), for a direction to implement the
order of the Hon'ble High Court by way of issuing a
corrigendum to the advertisement and also for allowing the
applicants to participate in the select list.
Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. H.K.
Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
Mr. Rath, learned counsel submits that earlier the applicants
had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C)
No.10285 of 2008 challenging the advertisement issued for
engagement of V.A.Ws/L.V.Ws and the Hon'ble Court disposed
of the said O.A vide order dtd.14.8.2008 with the observation
that-
"the Rules framed by the Government, if not followed by its
own authorities, will ultimately lead to conclusion, the
advantage of which would be taken by the dishonest officials
and unscrupulous candidates. In a case of similar nature
(W.P.(C) No.7833/2007 disposed of on 8.7.2008) this Court
while dealing with the provision of Section 3(d) of the O.R.V.
Act has observed that the provision of the O.R.V Act is also
applicable in respect of contractual employment in the
Government or in the Governmental organizations, as the case
may be.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Advertisement
in annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid extent. The O.Ps are
// 8 //
directed to issue a corrigendum to this effect and fix the last
date of application afresh".
Without complying with the said order of the Hon'ble High
Court the respondent authorities again issued a fresh
advertisement dated 18.5.2008 as at annexure-2. Challenging
the said advertisement under annexure-2 the applicants once
again approached Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008
and batch of cases so also W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2012. The first
batch of cases were disposed of vide order dtd.03.2.2012 with
the observations that-" 8. We are constrained to observe that
the action of the Secretary, Agriculture is not only contrary to
the rule but also contrary to the judgment rendered by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. While we propose to
impose heavy cost on the officers at fault, but on the
submission of the learned State Counsel no cost is imposed on
them. We hope that the offcers shall be careful in future while
dealing with the court matter.
9. So far as the age of the petitioners in respect of W.P.(C)
No.18942 of 2008, 18594 of 2008, 18943 of 2008, 18492 of
2008 and 113 of 2009 is concerned, it is open for the
petitioners to approach the authorities in this regard, who shall
consider the same looking to the fact that advertisement to the
post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen years".
And the second set of Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.3868
/2012 was disposed of with order to the effect-" it is stated by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the
petitioners in this present writ application is covered by the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008,
disposed of on 3.2.2012.
The direction contained in the aforesaid order is also
applicable to the petitioners in this writ application.
Accordingly, the advertisement under annxure-2 is quashed".
As such the respondent authorities were only directed by the
Hon'ble court to issue corrigendum in respect of the earlier
judgment where they never directed to issue fresh
advertisement fixing age limitation. Presently once again after
disposal of the second lot of cases vide order under Annexure-
4 again fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent
authority in daily Dharitri dtd.4.10.2013(Annexure-5) wherein
the age limit has been fixed that the candidates should not be
less than 21 years of age and more than 32 years. In the
mean time the applicants who had earlier approached Hon'ble
High Court and their writ petition was disposed of with a
direction only to issue corrigendum to the earlier advertisement
has not been issued. As on date the applicants are age
barred. As such the respondent authority while instead of
issuing a fresh advertisement ought to have issued only
corrigendum and incase they should issue fresh advertisement
they have been protected to earlier advertisement of the year
2008 and 2012 respectively. If in the fresh advertisement
appropriate age limit would have been accordingly fixed then
the applicant would have been eligible to apply for the post.
// 9 //
Even though for respondents pursuant to advertisement all
these applicants have applied for the post but their
applications have been rejected by the respondent authorities
on the grounds of upper age limit as has been prescribed in the
advertisement.
In that view of the matter, appropriate order may be passed
by this Tribunal protecting the applicants keeping in view the
earlier decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.10285
of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.3868 of
2012.
Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that
unless he obtain instruction from the respondent authorities he
is not in a position to say anything on the merits of the case.
Order of the Hon'ble Court has not been complied instead of
order passed in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594
of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2012.
Be that as it may, issue notice on the question of admission
specifically indicating therein that the matter is likely to be
disposed of at the stage of admission.
Counter be filed by the respondent authorities within a
period of four weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within one
week thereafter.
Put up this matter five weeks after.
However, so far as interim prayer is concerned since the
advertisement has already been issued and many candidates
must have applied to face selection test, the selection test be
conducted, result be published but no appointment be made
without leave of this Tribunal.
However, after appearance and filing of the counter or
otherwise the respondent authorities are at liberty to file
appropriate application for modification/variation of the above
order".
2.4. However, the order passed by the Tribunal on
09.12.2013 was modified vide order dtd.25.11.2014 with
the following effect:-
"Heard Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
B.B. Mohanty, Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the private
respondents and Mr. R.K. Dash, learned Government
Advocate.
This M.P. No.1394(C)/2014 (O.A. No.3990(C)/2013 has been
filed by the State respondents with a prayer to vacate the
interim order dtd.9.12.2013 and allow the respondent
authority for appointment of VAWs in the interest of the State
i.e., Bolangir Agric culture Range.
// 10 //
Similarly M.P. NO.1393(C)/2013 (O.A No.3988(C)/2013 has
been filed by the State respondents with a prayer to vacate the
interim order dtd.9.12.2013 and allow the respondent
authority for appointment of VAW in the interest of the State
i.e. Keonjhar, Agriculture Range.
Interim orders have been issued in these O.As
No.3990(C)/2013 and O.A No.3988(C)/2013 in which it is
stated that selection test be conducted, result be published but
no appointment be made without leave of this Tribunal, the
same interim order has been issued in O.A No.3548(C)/2013
on 17.1.2014.
Learned Govt. Advocate submits that due to acute shortage
of VAWs in Bolangir and Keonjhar Agriculture Range, the
Government programmes can not be implemented successfully.
Most of the farmers will unaware of the technical message to
be delivered by the field functionaries. The State respondents
submitted that due to interim order of this Tribunal
dtd.9.12.2013, no appointment orders have been issued.
Hence, the interim order passed in the above O.As. may be
vacated so that the State respondents may be able to issue
appointment orders to the selected candidates.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that appropriate
orders may be issued protecting the interest of the applicants.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides, the interim order passed on 09.12.2013 and
17.1.2014 in O.A Nos.3990(c)/2013, O.A No.3998(C)/2013
and O.A. No.3548(c)/2013 are modified to the effect that leave
is granted to State respondents to issue appointment orders in
respect of selected candidates, but such appointments shall
abide by the result of these O.As and this shall be reflected in
all such appointment orders. In case applicants succeed in
these O.As and are entitled to consequential appointments,
junior most of candidates selected and given appointment shall
have to make way for the applicants.
With these orders, the M.Ps.No.1394(C)/2014
(O.A.No.3009(C)/2013) and M.P. No.1393(c)/2014 (O.A.
No.3988(C)/2013) are accordingly disposed of".
2.5. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners in the 2013 matters and Mr. B.K. Hati,
learned counsel for the Petitioners in 2023 applications
vehemently contended that since the Director of Agriculture
and Food Production, Odisha without following the relevant
recruitment rules issued the advisement on 18.05.2008
// 11 //
inviting application to fill up the post of VAW and lady VAW
on contractual basis, the same was challenged before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008. The lead case being
W.P.(C) No.10285/2008, this Court after giving a detailed
discussion of the submission was pleased to quash the
advertisement dtd.18.05.2008 and with a further direction
to issue a corrigendum and to fix the last date of
application afresh. But without following the direction of
this Court so passed in its order dtd.14.08.2008, when a
fresh advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture of respective districts inviting similar
application for the vacant post of VAW on 05.12.2008, the
same was again challenged in different writ petitions in
W.P.(C) No.18942/2008 and batch.
2.6. This Court vide order dtd.03.02.2012 while holding
that the advertisement in question has been issued
contrary to the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.10285 of
2008, quashed the advertisement dtd.05.12.2008. While
quashing the same, this Court permitted the Petitioners in
some of the cases to move the authority for relaxation of
upper age limit so that they can appear and face the
recruitment with issuance of a corrigendum as directed by
this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 in W.P.(C)
No.10285/2008.
// 12 //
2.7. It is contended that without following the direction so
issued by this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 in W.P.(C)
No.10285 of 2008 by issuing a corrigendum to
advertisement dtd. 18.05.2008, when a fresh advertisement
was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir
Range on 04.10.2013 inviting application for the post of
VAW on contractual basis, the matter is under challenge in
the present batch of writ petitions.
2.8. It is contended that since this Court in its order
dtd.14.08.2008 while quashing the advertisement issued by
the Director of Agriculture and Food Production directed
the said authority to issue a corrigendum, the said order
having not been challenged by the State- authority, they are
bound to follow the same by issuing a corrigendum to the
advertisement dtd.18.05.2008. But without following the
said direction with issuance of the corrigendum when a
fresh advertisement was issued not by the Director of
Agriculture and Food Production, in terms of the provisions
contained under Rule-5(5) of the Recruitment & Training of
Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 (in short Rules)
and the advertisement in question was issued by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture, the same is under challenge
in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions.
// 13 //
2.9. It is contended that since this Court in its order
dtd.14.08.2008 clearly directed the Director of Agriculture
to issue a corrigendum and it is the Director of Agriculture
who is only competent to issue any advertisement for
selection to the post of VAW as provided under Rule-5(5) of
the Rules, the corrigendum should have been issued by the
Director of Agriculture and Food Production. But without
following the said direction when the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir issued a fresh advertisement on
05.12.2008, the same was again challenged in various writ
petitions. This Court vide order dtd.03.02.2012 quashed
the said advertisement by reiterating the order passed in
W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. But once again the impugned
advertisement was issued on 04.10.2013 by the Dy.
Director of Agriculture, who is not competent to issue such
an advertisement.
2.10. It is contended that in view of the order passed by this
Court on 03.02.2012 coupled with the order
dtd.14.08.2008, the Director of Agriculture and Food
Production should have issued the corrigendum to the
advertisement dtd.18.05.2008. But once again without
following the direction of this Court with issuance of a
corrigendum, a fresh advertisement has been issued by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture, who is not competent to
// 14 //
issue any such advertisement, in view of Rule-5(5) of the
Rules. Since the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 was issued
without following the order passed by this Court in two
successive writ petitions and was also issued by an
incompetent authority, the selection process undertaken in
terms of the advertisement is vitiated. The matter when was
challenged, the Tribunal, while issuing notice of the matter
vide order dtd.09.12.2013 passed an interim order by
restraining the Opposite Parties not to issue the
appointment order without leave of the Tribunal. The said
order though was modified vide order dtd.25.11.2014, but
the Tribunal clearly held that in case the Petitioners
succeed in the Original Application, junior most candidates
selected and given appointment shall have to make way for
the petitioners.
2.11. It is accordingly contended that since as provided
under Rule-5(5) of the Rules, it is the Director who is only
competent to issue the advertisement and the same having
not been issued by the Director, the process of selection
undertaken basing on the impugned advertisement so
issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Bolangir
Range on 04.10.2013 is vitiated.
2.12. It is contended that if a statute provides for a thing to
be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in
// 15 //
that manner only and in no other manner. Since in the
present case, the impugned advertisement has been issued
without following Rule-5(5) of the Rules, not only the said
advertisement but also the selection process conducted
thereof is illegal and liable for interference of this Court.
In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rath,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied
on the following decisions:-
1. (1998) 8 SCC-266 (Chandra Kishore Jha vs.
Mahavir Prasad & Others).
2. (2021) 6 SCC-707 (Opto Circuit India Limited
vs. Axis Bank & Others)
3. Civil Appeal No.4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.19886 of 2019) (Union of India & Ors.
vs. Mahendra Singh)
2.13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-17 of the case in
Chandra Kishore Jha has held as follows:-
"17.In our opinion insofar as an election petition is
concerned, proper presentation of an election petition in the
Patna High Court can only be made in the manner prescribed
by Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-E. No other mode of presentation of
an election petition is envisaged under the Act or the Rules
thereunder and, therefore, an election petition could, under
no circumstances, be presented to the Registrar to save the
period of limitation. It is a well-settled salutary principle that
if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no
other manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahrnad v. King
Emperor, 63 Indian Appeals 372=AIR 1936 PC 253; Rao Shiv
Bahadw Singh & Anr. V. State of Vindhya Pndwh, 1954 SCR
1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322. State of Utter Pradesh v. Singhan
Singh & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358 = (1964) 1 SCWR 57] An
election petition under the Rules could only have been
presented in the open Court upto 16.5.1995 till 4.15 P.M.
(working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule
6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be
to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done.
// 16 //
However, we cannot ignore that the situation in the present
case was not of the making of the appellant. Neither the
designated election Judge before whom the election petition
could be formally presented in the open Court nor the Bench
hearing civil applications and motions was admittedly
available on 16.5.1995 after 3.15 P.M., after the Obituary
Reference since admittedly the Chief Justice of the High
Court had declared that "the Court shall not sit for the rest of
the day" after 3.15 P.M. Law does not expect a party to do
the impossible - impossiblium nulla obligatioest as in the
instant case, the election petition could not be filed on
16.5.1995 during the Court hours, as far all intent and
purposes, the Court was closed on 16.5.1995 after 3.15 P.M".
2.14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-14 of the case in Opto
Circuit India Limited has held as follows:-
"14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a
statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other
manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the
presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure
prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had
an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what
would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the
case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors.
(1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration
observed as hereunder: "It is a well settled salutary principle
that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no
other manner". Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in
perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer
is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed
by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the
power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it
would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process
under law. We have found fault with the Authorised Officer
and declared the action bad only in so far as not following
the legal requirement before and after freezing the account.
This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the
merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the
matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its
Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate
proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved
party".
2.15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-14, 15, 16 & 17 of the
case in Union of India & Ors has held as follows:-
14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different
language is not followed by any consequence and, therefore,
cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable. The language
// 17 //
chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has
filled up the application form alone appears in the written
examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to
be in the language chosen by the candidate in the
application form. It is well settled that if a particular
procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the
application form should be filled up following that procedure
alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir
Ahmad v. King- Emperor9, wherein it was held that "that
where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way
the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other
methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."
15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment
reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad &
Ors.10, held as under:
"17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle
that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a
particular manner, then it has to be done in that
manner and in no other manner. (See with
advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-
36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)] , Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 :
1954 SCR 1098] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR
1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .) An election
petition under the rules could only have been
presented in the open court up to 16-5- 1995 till 4.15
p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner
prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or
the Bench as the case may be to save the period of
limitation. That, however, was not done................"
16. The said principle has been followed by this Court
in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors.11 wherein this Court held as under:
"14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a
particular manner following a particular procedure, it
shall be done in the same manner following the
provisions of law, without deviating from the
prescribed procedure............." 9 1936 SCC OnLine
PC 41 10 (1999) 8 SCC 266 11 (2015) 13 SCC 722.
17. Similarly, this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors.12 and OPTO Circuit
India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors.13 has followed the said
principle. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner
of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of
the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so
prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division
Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the
writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a
different language is not justified as the use of different
language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any
indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review".
// 18 //
2.16. It is also contended that because of the in-action of
Opposite Party No.2 in not following the direction issued by
this Court, since the impugned advertisement was issued
by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range on
04.10.2023, Petitioners could not appear in the selection
process and accordingly were deprived from being
considered from the purview of such selection.
2.17. It is also contended that in the meantime most of the
Petitioners have crossed the age limit to take part in any
further selection process and they suffered and lost their
livelihood due to inaction of Opposite Party No.2 in not
issuing a corrigendum to the initial advertisement issued
on 14.08.2008. Petitioners in the alternate were eligible to
get suitable compensation for such illegal action of
Opposite Party No.2.
In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the decisions of this
Court passed on 15.02.2023 in WPC(OA) No.2966 of 2016
(Harapriya Nanda vrs. State of Odisha & Others). This
Court placing reliance on the decision reported in the case
Rabindranath Ghosal vrs. Calcutta University &
Others reported in (2002) 7 SCC-478 and a decision of
the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nilubahen
Gordhanbhai Machhi vrs. State of Gujarat held the
// 19 //
Petitioner therein to get compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The order passed by this Court in Para-5, 5.1, 5.2, 7.4. and
7.5 are quoted hereunder:-
"5. Taking into account the submissions made
by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, Mr.
Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since due to the admitted latches
of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner was deprived
from being appointed as a Stipendiary Engineers
in the year 1994 and her claim was never
considered in spite of several approaches, the
Petitioner in view of such illegalities meted out to
her, entitled to get suitable compensation as deem
fits and proper by this Court for such admitted
negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in
keeping her out of employment.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on a
decision of this Court reported in 1998(I) OLR-108
and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Rabindranath Ghosal vrs Calcutta
University & Others reported in (2002) 7 SCC-
478.
5.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-9 of the case in
Rabindranath Ghosal has held as follows:-
"9. The Courts having the obligation to satisfy the social
aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and
grant compensation as damages in a public law
proceedings. Consequently when the Court moulds the
relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of
fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so
under the public law by way of penalising the
wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong
on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect
the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not
be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public
duty by every public officer would commend the Court to
grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and
32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding.
The Court in exercise of extraordinary power under
Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would
not award damages against public authorities merely
because they have made some order which turns out to
be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction in the
// 20 //
performance of the duties unless there is malice or
conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be
awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right
under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or
capricious action on the part of the public functionaries
and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act".
5.2. Mr. Ray, also relies on another decision of
the High Court of Gujarat passed in the case of
Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi vrs. State of
Gujarat. In Para-16 and 19.6 has held as
follows:-
"16. Furthermore, insofar as the submissions on
behalf of the State that a candidate does not get an
indefeasible right merely on account of name of the
said candidate figuring in the select/waiting list, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the State
cannot be heard to submit the said contention more
particularly when the State itself had recommended
for operating the waiting list, which had been
turned down by the GPSC. In any case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the proposition
that a candidate whose name appearing in the
select list does not get an indefeasible right for
appointment is not a completely unqualified
proposition, rather such proposition has been
clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court by holding that
the State cannot act in an arbitrary manner and the
decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. This Court at
this stage proposes to refer to the decision of the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India,
reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. Paragraphs 7 and
8 of the said decision being relevant for the purpose
are reproduced herein below for benefit:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies
are notified for appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful candidates
acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which
cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification
merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates
to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it
does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in
an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the
// 21 //
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled
up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit
of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test,
and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this Court,
and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions
in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and
Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and
Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899.
8. In State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha
and Others, (supra) 15 vacancies of Subordinate Judges
were advertised, and out of the selection list only 7, who
had secured more than 55% marks, were appointed,
although under the relevant rules the eligibility condition
required only 45% marks. Since the High Court had
recommended earlier, to the Punjab Government that
only the candidates securing 55% marks or more should
be appointed as Subordinate Judges, the other
candidates included in the select list were not
appointed. They filed a writ petition before the High
Court claiming a right of being appointed on the ground
that vacancies existed and they were qualified and
were found suitable. The writ application was allowed.
While reversing the decision of the High Court, it was
observed by this Court that it was open to the
Government to decide how MANY appointments should
be made and although the High Court had appreciated
the position correctly, it had ``somehow persuaded itself
to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact
there were 15 vacancies''. It was expressly ruled that
the existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to a
selected candidate. Similarly, the claim of some of the
candidates selected for appointment, who were
petitioners in Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others, was turned down holding that it
was open to the Government to decide how many
appointments would be made. The plea of arbitrariness
was rejected in view of the facts of the case and it was
had that the candidates did not acquire any right merely
by applying for selection or even after selection. It is true
that the claim of the petitioner in the case of Miss
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana was allowed by
this Court but, not on the ground that she had acquired
any right by her selection and existence of vacancies.
The fact was that the matter had been referred to the
Public Service Commission which sent to the
Government only the names of 17 candidates belonging
to the general category on the assumption that only 17
posts were to be filled up. The Government accordingly
// 22 //
made only 17 appointments and stated before the Court
that they were unable to select and appoint more
candidates as the Commission had not recommended
any other candidate. In this background it was observed
that it is, of course, open to the Government not to fill up
all the vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection
cannot be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates
notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the
availability of qualified candidates; and there must be a
conscious application of mind by the Government and
the High Court before the number of persons selected for
appointment is restricted. The fact that it was not for the
Public Service Commission to take a decision in this
regard was emphasised in this judgment. None of these
decisions, therefore, supports the appellant".
xxx xxx xxx
19.6. Since this Court has come to a conclusion that the
petitioners were forced to approach this Court on
account of GPSC relying upon a Circular of the
Government or on such portion of the Circular which has
been declared to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, the respondent
No.2 GPSC is required to be saddled with costs, which
would be payable to the petitioners. Costs quantified at
Rs.25,000/- in each of the petitions is imposed upon
GPSC, which shall be paid by GPSC through the
Registry of this Court to the respective petitioners".
xxx xxx xxx
7.4. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal under
Annexure-8, which was not interfered with when
challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6177 of
2007, it is the view of this Court that the prayer as
made in the Writ Petition cannot be entertained at
present. However, taking into account the sufferings
meted out to the Petitioner and the alleged
discrimination meted out to her, this Court basing on the
decisions as cited (supra) is inclined to held the
Petitioner entitled to get compensation as the Petitioner
because of the inaction of the Opp. Parties was deprived
of her livelihood, which amounts to violation of Article-21
of the Constitution of India.
7.5. This Court taking into account the entireties of
the facts while holding the Petitioner entitled to get
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs)
directs the Opposite Party No.3 to release the amount
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
this order".
// 23 //
3. Learned State Counsel basing on the stand taken in
the counter affidavit when contended that instead of
issuing a corrigendum as directed, as the grievances of the
Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008 and W.P.(C)
No.18942 of 2008 and batch was taken care of, by the Dy.
Director of Agriculture while issuing the advertisement on
04.10.2013, there was no requirement to issue a
corrigendum.
3.1. It is also contended that this Court in its order
dtd.03.02.2012, though quashed the subsequent
advertisement issued on 05.12.2008 but permitted the
Petitioners in some of the writ petitions to move the
authority seeking relaxation of upper age limit for
appearing the recruitment test, as in the meantime they
have crossed the upper age limit so prescribed under the
1981 Rules. When prayer was made for relaxation of upper
age limit by the candidates belonging to the District of
Bolangir, the same was considered and rejected by the
Director of Agriculture and Food Production vide order
dtd.25.10.2013.
3.2. It is accordingly contended that since the ground on
which the advertisement issued by the Director of
// 24 //
Agriculture and Food Production on 18.05.2008 and by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture on 05.12.2008 were quashed
by this Court, was taken care of by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir Range while issuing the advertisement
on 04.10.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in all
these writ petitions, there was no necessity to issue a
corrigendum as directed by this Court.
3.3. It is also contended that basing on the advertisement
so issued on 04.10.2013 not only the selection process was
undertaken but also selected candidates have been
provided with the appointment in the meantime. But since
the Petitioners' claim for relaxation of age was not allowed,
they have not participated in the selection process.
3.4. It is also contended that in terms of the order passed
by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008 and W.P.(C)
No.18942/2008 and batch, Government in the Department
of Agriculture vide letter dtd.22.11.2008 requested the
Director of Agriculture & Food Production to revise the
advertisement so issued by him since VAW is a cadre post
coming under different range and the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir Range is the appointing authority.
3.5. It is contended in terms of the letter issued by the
Government on 22.11.2008 and subsequent letter issued
// 25 //
by the Director on 13.07.2013, Deputy Director of
Agriculture issued the advertisement on 04.10.2013 by
incorporating the requirement as provided under the 1981
Rules.
3.6. It is lastly contended that since the ground on which
the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008 and 05.12.2008 were
quashed by this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 and
03.02.2012, were incorporated and taken care of while
issuing the fresh advertisement on 04.10.2013 by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture, it amounts to compliance of
the direction of this Court and there is no requirement to
issue a corrigendum as directed.
4. Considering the stand taken by the Writ Petitioners
and the State Counsel, this Court passed an order on
25.04.2023 to the following effect:-
"2. Heard in Part.
3. As requested by Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned ASC, list this
matter on 03.05.2023 in order to enable him to obtain the
instruction whether pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 14.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 10285 of 200, a
corrigendum was issued to the advertisement
dtd.18.05.2008".
5. Pursuant to the said order, instruction was provided
by the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Bolangir. Basing
on the said instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
contended that since the ground on which, this Court
// 26 //
quashed the advertisement dtd. 18.05.2008 in W.P.(C)
No.10285 of 2008 and advertisement dtd.05.12.2008
W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008, were incorporated in the
advertisement issued on 04.10.2013, there was no occasion
to issue a corrigendum as directed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.10285 of 2008.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that the advertisement
issued on 03.10.2013 by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir Range since has incorporated the
objections so raised by the writ petitioners and the selection
process was not only undertaken but also completed, the
Petitioners have no further grievance to make.
6. On being provided with the instruction so produced
by learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. J.K. Rath, learned
Senior Counsel while making his submission contended
that as provided under Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules, it is
the Director of Agriculture who is only competent to issue
the advertisement for recruitment to the post of VAW and
the 1st advertisement was also issued on 18.05.2008 by the
Director of Agriculture in accordance with Rule-5(5). But
the said advertisement when was quashed by this Court in
its order dtd.14.08.2008, it is the Director who has to issue
a corrigendum as directed and not by permitting the
Deputy Director of Agriculture to issue a fresh
// 27 //
advertisement even though the same was permitted by the
Government vide letter dtd.22.11.2008 and by the Director
vide letter dtd.13.09.2013.
6.1. It is accordingly contended that since the impugned
advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 has not only been issued
without complying the earlier order of this Court so passed
on 14.08.2008 and 03.02.2012, but also in violation of
Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules, the said advertisement having
not been issued by a competent authority, the same is not
only illegal but also the selection process undertaken in
terms of the said advertisement is vitiated.
7. Considering the submissions of Mr.Rath, learned
Senior Counsel, this Court passed an order on 17.07.2023
to the following effect:-
"2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the State.
3. It is contended that as per Rule-5(5) of the Recruitment &
Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981, it is
the Director who is only competent to issue advertisement
for recruitment to the post in question. In the instant case
the first advertisement of the year 2008 was issued by the
Director in accordance with Rule-5(5). But when the
advertisement was quashed by this Court, the second
advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, which is not in accordance with the Rule. But
the said advertisement was also quashed by this Court in
its order dated 03.02.2012. The 3rd advertisement which is
the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition has been
issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture once again vide
Annexure-5. It is contended that since it is mandatory that
the Director has to issue the advertisement in terms of Rule
5(5), the impugned advertisement since has been issued by
// 28 //
an incompetent authority, the same is not sustainable,
bereft of the other grounds taken in the Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is
directed to obtain instruction on the aforesaid submission of
Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel. The rules as well as the
notification dated 28.08.1998 and 06.06.2000 so produced
by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel in Court, be kept in
record.
5. As requested by Mr. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate, list this matter on 02.08.2023 along with all
connected cases.
6. Free copy to learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for
compliance".
8. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
17.07.2023 instruction is shape of an affidavit was filed on
behalf of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. Basing on the said
instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that
post of VAW is a district cadre post and Opposite Party No.1
vide letter dtd.22.11.2008 permitted the Deputy Director of
Agriculture in respective Districts to issue fresh
advertisement, after the advertisement issued by the
Director of Agriculture on 18.05.2008 was quashed by this
Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality has been committed with
issuance of the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture in their respective districts.
8.1. The stand taken by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in
Para-6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit dtd.01.08.2023 are quoted
hereunder:-
// 29 //
"6. That, so far as competency of the Deputy Director,
Agriculture, Bolangir Range, the Opp. Party No.3 in issuing
the advertisement dtd.4.10.2013 vide Annexure-5(impugned)
it is submitted that, as it would reveal from the Resolution
dtd.31.8.1998 vide Annexure-E/1, following the order
contained in O.A No.1548/1995, the post of VAW was
converted to district cadre.
7. That, following the resolution dtd.3.18.1998 vide
Annexure-E/1 which has the reference in order No.1020
dtd.9.7.1999 vide Annexure-F/1 of the Office of Director,
Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the
guideline has been set out for the VAW to exercise their option
to be adjusted in different districts.
8. That, as it reveals from letter No.33603
dtd.22.11.2008 of the Govt. of Odisha, in the department of
Agriculture, it has been indicated that, since VAW is a range
cadre post and DDAs are appointing authority, fresh
advertisement may be issued by respective Deputy Director
of Agriculture in their respective districts. Accordingly the
advertisement dtd.5.12.2008 vide Annexure-3 has been
issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Keonjhar Range,
Keonjhar. So also the Advertisement dtd.4.10.2013 vide
Annexure-5 has been issued by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir pursuant to
aforementioned govt. resolution and direction. True copy of
letter No.33603 dtd.22.11.2008 is filed herewith as
Annexure-K/1".
8.2. It is accordingly contended that since the post of VAW
is a district cadre post and subsequent to the order passed
by this Court on 14.08.2008, Government-Opposite Party
No.1 in the Department of Agriculture permitted the
Director to issue necessary instruction to respective Deputy
Director of Agriculture to issue fresh advertisement and the
advertisement has been issued by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture, there is no illegality or irregularity with
issuance of such an advertisement and the section
undertaken thereof.
// 30 //
9. I have heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel for
the Petitioners in 2013 application, Mr. B.K. Hati, learned
counsel for the Petitioners in 2023 application and Mr. H.K.
Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-Opposite Parties. On their consent, these matters
were taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, it is found
that without following the stipulation contained in the
relevant recruitment rules i.e. Recruitment and Training of
Village Agricultural Workers, Rules, 1981 when Director of
Agriculture issued an advertisement on 18.05.2008 to fill
up the post of VAW and lady VAW on contractual basis in
different districts which includes the District of Bolangir,
the said advertisement was challenged before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. This Court vide order
dtd.14.08.2008 while quashing the advertisement directed
the Opposite Party No.2 to issue a corrigendum and to fix
the last date of application afresh.
10.1. On the face of such direction and without issuance of
a corrigendum by the Director of Agriculture, who had
issued the advertisement on 18.05.2008, fresh
advertisement when was issued by the respective, Deputy
Director of Agriculture of different districts, the same was
// 31 //
again challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18942 of
2008 and batch. This Court vide order dtd.03.02.2012
taking into account the earlier order passed on 14.08.2008
in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008, quashed the advertisement
issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on
05.12.2008. On the face of the order passed by this Court
on 14.08.2008 and 03.02.2012, no corrigendum was issued
to the advertisement dtd. 18.05.2008 by the Director of
Agriculture who as per the considered view of this Court is
the competent authority to issue such advertisement in
terms of Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules. Rule-5(5) of the
Rules, 1981 is quoted hereunder:-
Rule-5(5): The Director of Agriculture & Food Production shall
advertise in leading oriya dailies and call for application in
the prescribed form as per schedule-1 indicating the tentative
number of trainees to be selected from each Revenue District,
preferably in the month of May of the year".
10.2. Since as provided under Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules,
it is the Director of Agriculture of Food Production, who is
competent to issue advertisement in leading oriya dailies
and call for application in the prescribed form as per
Schedule-I, to be selected from each Revenue District, the
advertisement at any cost could not have been issued by
the Deputy Director of Agriculture of respective Districts
including the district of Bolangir.
// 32 //
10.3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
25.04.2023, it is also admitted by Opposite Party that in
terms of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2008, no
corrigendum was issued by the Director of Agriculture and
Food Production. The stand taken by Opposite Party that
the ground on which the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008 and
05.12.2008 were quashed by this Court were
incorporated/provided in the advertisement issued by the
respective Deputy Director of Agriculture on 04.10.2013 is
not acceptable, as this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008,
while quashing the 1st advertisement issued on 18.05.2008
by the Director of Agriculture, directed him to issue a
corrigendum. Since the order dtd.14.08.2008 was never
assailed by the State-Opposite Party, they are bound to
comply the said order by issuing a corrigendum. Since at
no point of time a corrigendum was issued in terms of the
said order and a fresh advertisement was issued by
respective Deputy Director of Agriculture on 05.12.2008,
the same was again quashed by this Court in its order
dtd.03.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No.18942/2008 and batch. On
the face of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2008
and 03.02.2012, no corrigendum was issued by the
Director of Agriculture to the advertisement
dtd.18.05.2008.
// 33 //
10.4. Since the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 was issued
by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in respect of
respective districts including the District of Bolangir, in
view of the provisions contained under Rule-5(5) of the
1981 Rules, placing reliance on the decision in the case of
(1998) 8 SCC-266 (Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir
Prasad & Others, (2021) 6 SCC-707 (Opto Circuit India
Limited vs. Axis Bank & Others) & Civil Appeal
No.4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of
2019) (Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh) as per
the considered view of this Court Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Bolangir is not competent to issue such
advertisement. Since as provided under Rule-5(5), the
Director of Agriculture and Food Production is required to
issue the advertisement and in the instant writ petitions
the impugned advertisement has been issued by the Deputy
Director of Agriculture Bolangir Range on 04.10.2013, this
Court placing reliance on Rule-5(5) of the Rules is of the
view that the impugned advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 has
been issued by an incompetent authority and that too
without issuance of a corrigendum by the Director of
Agriculture to the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008.
10.5. Therefore, this Court in view of such material
irregularity in the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013, is inclined
// 34 //
to quash the same. In view of such quashing of the
advertisement any selection process undertaken in terms of
the said advertisement is also quashed. Since because of
the admitted latches on the part of the Opposite Party
Nos.1 and 2 in not issuing a corrigendum on the face of the
order passed by this Court on 14.08.2008 and 03.02.2012,
the Petitioners in all these cases could not get a chance to
participate in the selection process and in the process lost
their livelihood, placing reliance on the decision in the case
of Harapriya Nanda as cited (supra), this court directs
Opposite Party No.1 to pay compensation amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- each to each of the Petitioners. The
compensation as directed be paid within a period of one (1)
month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the
Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 13th of October, 2023/Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Nov-2023 15:51:53
