Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Purohit vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
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.
Page 3 of 34
// 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 Page 4 of 34 // 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 Page 5 of 34 // 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 Page 6 of 34 // 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 Page 7 of 34 // 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. Page 8 of 34
// 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.Page 9 of 34
// 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 Page 10 of 34 // 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.
Page 11 of 34
// 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.
Page 12 of 34
// 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 Page 13 of 34 // 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 Page 14 of 34 // 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.Page 15 of 34
// 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 Page 16 of 34 // 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".Page 17 of 34
// 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 Page 18 of 34 // 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 Page 19 of 34 // 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 Page 20 of 34 // 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 Page 21 of 34 // 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".Page 22 of 34
// 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 Page 23 of 34 // 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 Page 24 of 34 // 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 Page 25 of 34 // 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 Page 26 of 34 // 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 Page 27 of 34 // 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:-
Page 28 of 34
// 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.Page 29 of 34
// 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 Page 30 of 34 // 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.Page 31 of 34
// 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.
Page 32 of 34
// 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 Page 33 of 34 // 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 Page 34 of 34