Orissa High Court
At: Bharundi vs State Of Orissa on 15 January, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021
AND
W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021
In the matter of Applications under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021
1. Prakash Kumar Chhatoi Aged about 53 years Son of Bhramarbar Chhatoi At: Dhorapada District: Nabarangpur.
2. Hemanta Panaka Aged about 33 years Son of Manguru Panaka At: Bakadabeda, P.O.: Bakadabeda District: Nabarangpur.
3. Sudipta Sekhar Sardar Aged about 31 years Son of Kalipada Sardar At: School Sahi, Bhiksha Kodobhala District: Nabarangpur.
4. Pradip Sardar Aged about 45 years Son of Gopal Sardar, At: Gurusinga, Mahand District: Nabarangpur.
5. Malay Kumar Mistry Aged about 41 years Son of Sudhir Ranjan Mistry W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 1 of 133 At: Bharundi, Raighar District: Nabarangpur.
6. Madana Kumar Sarkar Aged about 35 years Son of Haris Chandra Sarkar At: Parachipara, Kibekonga District: Nabarangpur.
7. Sukuram Gond Aged about 43 years Son of Rupsing Gond At: Nuapada, Turudihi P.S.: Kundei District: Nabarangpur.
8. Bhujabala Gouda Aged about * years Son of Abhiram Gouda District: Nabarangpur. ... Petitioners
-VERSUS-
1. State of Orissa Represented through the Principal Secretary to Government Department of Panchayati Raj, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.
2. Collector, Nabarangapur At/P.O./District: Nabarangapur,
3. Collector, Mayurbhanj At/P.O./District: Mayurbhanj.
4. Collector, Puri At/P.O./District: Puri.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 2 of 1335. Collector, Ganjam At/P.O.: Chhatrapur District: Ganjam.
6. Collector, Gajapati At/P.O./District: Gajapati Paralakhemundi.
7. Collector, Rayagada At/P.O./District: Rayagada.
8. Collector, Koraput At/P.O./District: Koraput.
9. Collector, Malakangiri At/P.O./District: Malakangiri.
10. Collector, Nabarangapur At/P.O./District: Nabarangapur.
11. Collector, Kalahandi At/P.O./District: Kalahandi.
12. Collector, Nuapada At/P.O./District: Nuapada.
13. Collector, Bolangir At/P.O./District: Bolangir.
14. Collector, Sambalpur At/P.O./District: Sambalpur.
15. Collector, Bargarh At/P.O./District: Baragarh.
16. Collector, Sundergarh At/P.O./District: Sundergarh.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 3 of 13317. Collector, Sonepur At/P.O./District: Sonepur.
18. Collector, Khordha At/P.O./District: Khordha.
19. Collector, Cuttack At/P.O./District: Cuttack.
20. Collector, Keonjhar At/P.O./District: Keonjhar.
21. Collector, Kendrapara At/P.O./District: Kendrapara.
22. Collector, Jajpur At/P.O./District: Jajpur.
23. Collector, Jagatsinghpur At/P.O./District: Jagatsinghpur.
24. Collector, Boudh At/P.O./District: Boudh.
25. Collector, Kandhamal At/P.O./District: Kandhamal, Phulbani.
26. Collector, Balasore At/P.O./District: Balasore.
27. Collector, Anugul At/P.O./District: Anugul.
28. Collector, Bhadrak At/P.O./District: Bhadrak.
29. Collector, Jharsuguda At/P.O./District: Jharsuguda.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 4 of 13330. Collector, Dhenkanal At/P.O./District: Dhenkanal.
31. Collector, Deogarh At/P.O./District: Deogarh.
32. Collector, Nayagarh At/P.O./District: Nayagarh.
33. Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission Represented through Secretary At: Block No.3 & 5, Unit-1 Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. ... Opposite Parties.
W.P.(C) No.22464 of 20211. Parameswar Biswal, Aged about 35 years Son of Purna Chandra Biswal, At/P.O.: Chhelia, P.O./Block: Badasahi, District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757026.
2. Manas Ranjan Maity, Aged about 50 years Son of Khageswar Mohanty, At/P.O.: Sikidia, P.S.: Khunta Block: G.B. Nagar, District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757102.
3. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 40 years Son of Purna Chandra Mishra, At/P.O.: Gadia, Block: Morada, District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 7579023.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 5 of 1334. Nepal Kishore Bardhanaged About 38 years Son of Jitendranath Burdhan At/P.O.: Podasita, Block: Samakhunta District: Mayurbhanj.
5. Manas Kumar Sahu Aged about 30 years Son of Manmatha Kumar Sahu At/P.O.: Kalma, Block: Betonati District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757082.
6. Anup Kumar Behera Aged about 28 years Son of Sursh Chandra Behera At: Chhachinapada, P.O.: Muktapur District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757100.
7. Rajeeb Kumar Pradhan Aged about 34 years Son of Parameswar Pradhan At/P.O.: Sithilo, Block: Binoti District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757100.
8. Swarup Kumar Puti Aged about 47 years Ramanath Puti At/P.O.: Paturi District: Mayurbhanj Pin:757030.
9. Abhimanyu Dehuri Aged about 41 years Son of Duryodhan Dehuri At/P.O.: Pathachantia P.S.: Baichaugaon District: Mayurbhanj Pin:757020.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 6 of 13310. Manoranjan Hati Aged about 41 years Son of Duryodhan Hati At: Parasbani, P.O.: Mankad Pada P.S.: Kaptipada District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757040.
11. Dhiren Kumar Palei Aged about 41 years Son of Madhusudan Palei At/P.O.: Jalapada P.O.: Thakurmunda District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757040.
12. Dillip Kumar Mohanta Aged about 39 years Son of Pradeep Kumar Mahanta At: Simigan, P.O.: Rasantala P.S.: Karanjia District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757037.
13. Suresh Chandra Barik Aged about 36 years Son of Dinabandhu Barik At/P.O.: Kuliposi, P.S.: Karanjia District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757037.
14. Abhimanyu Naik Aged about 38 years Son of late Bino Bihari Naik At/P.O.: Plurunapani, P.S.: Rairangpur District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757043.
15. Antaryami Sahu Aged about 46 years Son of Umesh Chandra Sahu W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 7 of 133 At: Tadaki, P.O.: Chandrapur District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757026.
16. Babrubahan Patra Aged about 46 years Son of late Kailash Patra At: Panudaskhunta, P.O.: Tikarpada District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757019. ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha, Represented through the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water, At: Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Collector, Mayurbhanj At/P.O./District: Mayurbhanj.
3. Project Director DRDA, Mayurbhanj District: Mayurbhanj. ... Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021For the Petitioner : M/s. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Satyabrata Mohapatra, Premananda Swain, Advocates For the Opposite parties : Mr. Saswat Das Additional Government Advocate W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 8 of 133 For the Petitioner : M/s. Amiya Kumar Mohanty, R.K. Behera, R.C. Pradhan, P. Sahoo, Advocates For the Opposite parties : Mr. Saswat Das Additional Government Advocate P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 15.01.2026 J UDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
Craving to challenge promulgation of the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 ("Rules, 2021", for convenience), superseding of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008 ("Rules, 2008", for short), purported to have restricted promotional avenue of Grama Rozgar Sevaks ("GRS", abbreviated) engaged under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ("MGNREGS", for brevity), floated in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for brevity, MGNREG W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 9 of 133 Act"), these writ petitions are filed to invoke extraordinary power of judicial review under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with prayer(s) to grant following relief(s):
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021:
―It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why declare the notification dated 29.07.2021 under Annexure-10 shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and unconstitutional so also contrary to the existing Rules and appropriate order in the nature of writ of mandamus shall not be issued to the respective collectors to extend the promotional benefits to the Grama Rozgar Sevaks in terms of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008 and so also Amendments 2012 & 2013 with retrospective service benefits to secure ends of justice.
This Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to quash the advertisement dated 24.02.2023 under Annexure-11 to secure ends of justice.
And pass such other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.‖ W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021:W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 10 of 133
―It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the services of the petitioners shall not be regularized, they shall not be given promotion to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer as some of their colleagues under gradation list 2020 have given promotion to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer and why the new Rules, 2021 dated 29.07.2021 under Annexure-11 may (not) be quashed so far the existing Grama Rozgar Sevaks are concerned;
iv) If the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause a appropriate writ(s) order(s) direction(s) be issued directing the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner give promotion may be given after completion of six years of service, like their colleagues under the gradation list and the impugned Rules, 2021 of the cabinet dated 29.07.2021 under Annexure-11 may be quashed and grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition be allowed;
v) And further be pleased to pass any other writ(s) direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the ends of justice be fixed to the opposite parties for redressal of grievance of the petitioners.
And for this act of kindness the petitioners shall, as in duty bound ever pray.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 11 of 133 Facts adumbrated in the writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021:
2. Promotional avenue of the petitioners, engaged on contractual basis as the Grama Rozgar Sevaks under the MGNREGS by the Panchayati Raj Institutions, by virtue of policy of the Government of Odisha spelt out through the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment & Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008, as stood amended by way of Amendment Rules in the years 2012 and 2013, and other Guidelines and Clarifications issued on the subject, to the post of the Village Level Worker (re-
designated as, Panchayat Executive Officer) has been curtailed and constricted by way of introduction of the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021. Certain unworkable and stringent conditions for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Village Level Worker (abbreviated as, "VLW") has been incorporated by bringing into force said Rules, 2021; as a result of which the names appearing in the Gradation List of Grama Rozgar Sevaks prepared in pursuance of Letter No.11530-17-PADM-19-1028/PR, dated 20.04.2013 issued by the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department has been given a go-bye; thereby, with the introduction of Rules, 2021, the legitimate expectation of the petitioners for promotion has been scuttled down.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 12 of 1332.1. The right to be regularized and promoted to the post of VLW (re-designated and called subsequently as, "Panchayat Executive Officer")1, the petitioners-GRS being guided by the extant conditions of service envisaged in the Rules, 2008, as amended in the years 2012 and 2013, is sought to be taken away by the Rules, 2021. Such an action of the Government, model employer, offends constitutional mandate and runs contrary to the avowed purport of provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 299, 234, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India in terms of law set forth in M.P. Housing Board Vrs. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006) 2 SCC
702. The Rules, 2021 restricted the eligibility of the GRS for participation in the written test for the post of the Panchayat Executive Officer (for short be referred to as "PEO").
1 Vide Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1735, dated 22.12.2015, the following notification was published:
―[No. 19801-17-PADM-19-1046/PR.] Panchayati Raj Department Resolution The 10th December, 2015 Sub: Re-designation of the Cadre of Village Level Worker.
The Village Level Workers working in Panchayats and discharging their duties as per Section 122 of Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 are hereby re-designated as ―Panchayat Executive Officers‖ with immediate effect.
2. The statutory Acts/Rules shall be amended suitably.
3. This shall come into effect from the date of its publication in the Odisha Gazette.
Order Ordered that this Resolution be published in the Extraordinary issue of Odisha Gazatte.
By Order of the Governor D. P. DAS Director‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 13 of 133 2.2. The petitioners raised peeve against an Advertisement No.IIE-07/2023/492(C)/OSSSC, dated 24.02.2023 issued by the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission inviting online application for "Combined Recruitment Examination, 2023 for the District Cadre Posts of Junior Assistants and Panchayat Executive Officer" (Annexure-11) in terms of the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission (District Cadre) Rules, 2012, the Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Junior Assistants, Senior Assistants and Section Officers in the District Offices and Offices Subordinate Thereto) Rules, 2019 and the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, as amended up to date. It is apprehended that the remaining GRS, whose names appear in the Gradation List, would not be considered for promotion to the post of PEO, as the petitioner are required to participate in the examination.
2.3. Said Advertisement having fixed cut-off date as 27.03.2023 and sought to dispense with continuity in service, inter alia with respect to GRS laid down the following eligibility criteria:
―In order to be eligible for the post of Panchayat Executive Officer, the Grama Rozgar Sevaks, engaged under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 14 of 133 Scheme (MGNREGS), who are less than 45 years of age and are otherwise eligible shall be eligible to appear in the examination and shall be considered for recruitment to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer only. Such candidates shall produce a certificate from the Collector of the concerned district regarding their continuity as Grama Rozgar Sevaks in support of their claim for verification to be done on a later date after the written test.‖ 2.4. Challenge has been laid to the validity of the Rules, 2021 superseding the Rules, 2008 on the plea based on Chairman, Railway Board Vrs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623 = (1997) Supp (3) SCR 63 that a benefit extended under the existing Rules cannot be taken away by way of an amendment with retrospective effect and no statutory Rules and administrative order can whittle down or destroy any right which has become crystallized and the Rules cannot be framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and made operational which affects or imperils the vested right. As the promotion has been accorded to the GRS, whose names appeared in the Gradation List, to the post of VLW (now, PEO) since the year 2013, which brought amendment to the Rules, 2008, the petitioners‟ legitimate expectation waiting in the queue could not have been abruptly stopped by changing the policy in the garb of supersession of the Rules, 2008.
Facts adumbrated in the writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021:
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 15 of 1333. Pursuant to the Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Department Order dated 25.08.2006 for engagement of Multipurpose Assistants (Grama Rozgar Sevaks) the petitioners were appointed being selected by Selection Committee. While continuing as such the Panchayati Raj Department published Notification dated 26.03.2013 amending the provisions of the Rules, 2008. In the said Rules it was stipulated that in case of non-availability of eligible Grama Panchayat Secretaries, the posts remaining unfilled, would be filled up in the manner specified therein. Accordingly, the Collectors were instructed to prepare district-wise Gradation List of GRS taking into their date of joining in the post for appointment to the post of VLW with further condition that the GRS must have rendered at least 5 years of service.
3.1. A Selection Committee constituted for appointment as GRS as well as for their selection to VLW, the opposite parties decided to give promotion at certain percentage to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer out of the names of persons appearing in the Gradation List and the GRS so appointed have been promoted to the post of the PEO. On 24.12.2013, 19 GRS were promoted to the post of VLW and thereafter on 30.12.2020, 42 GRS were promoted to the post of PEO. However, by virtue of Notification dated 29.07.2021, the Rules, 2008 as W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 16 of 133 amended in the year 2013, has been superseded and the policy of filling up of 30% vacancies to the post of VLW/PEO from amongst the GRS has been dispensed with and on introduction of the Rules, 2021, so far as GRSs are concerned, certain conditions have been stipulated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 thereof restricting the promotional avenue to such GRS, who were awaiting for their turn as per Gradation List prepared under the erstwhile regime.
3.2. Section 123 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, provides for appointment of Secretary by a Grama Panchayat and by Notification dated 23.09.1989 the Government decided to appoint Secretaries in Grama Panchayat. It was also in vogue that 25% of the vacancies in the post of VLW were to be filled up by selecting eligible Secretaries from out of the Gradation List. After amendment of the Rules, 2008 in the year 2013, the GRS were being appointed as the VLW.
Though some of the GRS, whose names appeared in the Gradation List, were given promotion to the post of PEO, by virtue of supersession of said Rules, 2008 by introduction of the Rules, 2021, the legitimate expectation of the left out GRSs in the Gradation List has been taken away by inserting certain irrational and illogical conditions in the eligibility provisions thereof.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 17 of 1333.3. Drawing parallel between the job entrusted to the GRS and the Junior Clerks in Group-C category, a plea is set up by the petitioners to indicate that while they are paid meager Rs.8,880/-, the Junior Clerks discharging less responsible duty than the GRS, in addition to Rs.8,880/- they are being paid Rs.1,900/- Grade Pay; hence, in the event GRS is given promotion to the post of VLW/PEO, an amount of Rs.9,000/- would be paid with Pay Band of Rs.2,000/-. This would not pose much burden on the State Exchequer.
3.4. The Rules, 2021 is hit by Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
3.5. Another facet highlighted is that allowing to participate in the written test subject to production of a certificate from the Collector of the concerned District regarding continuity in service as GRS, having less than 45 years of age, the Rules, 2021 put upon arbitrary restriction. Though 1% extra mark for each completed year of continuous services as GRS subject to a maximum of 15% marks is to be added to the marks secured for deciding the merit position, it would not yield fruitful result as the petitioners, who have legitimate expectation to get the promotional post of PEO as per the names appearing in the Gradation List. The services of the petitioners are yet to be regularized and are entitled to get promotion to the post of PEO as provided in the W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 18 of 133 Rules, 2008 read with the amendments carried out therein by the Amendment Rules, 2013 in accordance with the seniority position as per Gradation List. The Rules, 2021 modifies eligibility conditions of GRS to a large extent which, in effect, denies the scope to get promotion.
3.6. Hence, this writ application is filed.
Counter affidavit of the opposite parties:
4. An affidavit in reply has been filed in W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 by the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department on 20.01.2023 adopting the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 for brevity inasmuch as the legal issues/contexts of both the cases are identical.
4.1. A counter affidavit has come to be filed by the Government in W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 on 24.09.2022, taking stance that the appointment/ promotion to the post of PEO, being not a matter of right, the Rules, 2021, has been framed by the State Government, in supersession of the Rules, 2008, as amended from time to time, being invested with power to do so by invoking provision of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 19 of 1334.2. It is stated that the claim of the petitioners for the post of PEO is not completely overlooked by way of the Rules, 2021, but conditions like relaxation of age and awarding percentage of marks for services rendered are introduced for selecting competent and suitable persons.
4.3. Per contra, to the stand taken by the petitioners, it is voiced that the existing GRS by virtue of the Rules, 2021 would be granted two additional benefits, namely, age relaxation upto 45 years in contrast with the general candidates, which was 32 years, and GRS shall be allowed one percent extra marks of total marks of the examination for each completed year of continuous service subject to maximum of the fifteen percent for deciding the merit position.
4.4. Since the Rules, 2021 has been enforced by supersession of the Rules, 2008 as amended in 2012 and 2013, there is no impediment for consideration of direct recruitment to the post of PEO and also taking into consideration the eligible GRS as provided under the Rules, 2021, for Section 122 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 clearly lays down that every Grama Sasan shall have a PEO. It is further clarified that though the GRS is engaged under the MGNREG Act/MGNREGS, the Rules, 2021 stipulated consideration of GRS for promotion with certain conditions. Said Rules, 2021 having not abolished the W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 20 of 133 status of GRS under the MGNREGS, the apprehension of the petitioners is without comprehension.
Background giving rise to present case:
5. The Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 being superseded based on the Committee Report submitted during January, 1961, the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as, "OGP Act") was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Grama Panchayats in the State of Odisha and enforced in Odisha under the aegis of Chapter-IX of the Constitution of India.
5.1. Section 122 and Section 123 incorporated in Chapter-XII of the OGP Act, 1964, deals with establishment and conduct of business. Pre-Amendment and Post Amendment of said provision by virtue of the Odisha Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2004, read as follows:
Before amendment2 After amendment2
122. Officers and servants of 122. Executive Officer of Grama Sasan.-- Grama Sasan. --
(1) Subject to such general or (1) There shall be an special orders, if any, Executive Officer for made in that behalf by the every Grama Sasan 2 The Odisha Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2004 [Odisha Act 9 of 2004] Vide Notification No. 1040, dated 12.10.2004, published in Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No. 1368 dated 12.10.2004. The text of Section 122 is extracted as reflected in the report: 2008 (II) OLR 530 [Fakirmohan Das Vrs. Government of Odisha]. Section 122(3) of the OGP Act as amended by said Notification, has been declared ultra vires the Constitution by this Court in the said decision.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 21 of 133
State Government there who shall,
shall be a Secretary and (a) maintain the records of
such officers and servants the proceedings of the
for the Grama Sasan as meetings of Grama
may be necessary for Panchayats;
enabling the Grama (b) remain in custody of all
Panchayat to exercise its such records and
powers, discharge its documents, cash and
duties, and perform its valuable securities
functions for carrying out belonging to or vested
the purposes of this Act in or under the
and the rules made direction, management
thereunder and the or control of the Grama
powers, duties and Sasan as may be
functions of such officers prescribed; and
and servants shall be as (c) exercise such other
may be prescribed. powers, discharge such
(2) All matters relating to the other duties and
appointment, qualification, perform such other
manner of recruitment of functions as may be
the Secretary and offices prescribed.
and servants and to their (2) The VLWs and VAWs
salary, allowances, leave working in a district
and all other conditions of shall, for the purposes
service including the of sub-section (1), act as
exercise of disciplinary Executive Officers
control and supervision within the local area of
over such officers and such Grama or Gramas
servants shall be governed as may respectively be
by the rules made in that assigned to them by the
behalf. Collector.
(3) Notwithstanding anything Explanation.--
in any other law for the For the purposes of sub-
time being in force the section (2):
State Government may, (a) ―VLWs‖ shall mean the
whenever they consider it Village Level workers
expedient so to do, provide appointed by the
by rules made in that Collector for
behalf a common cadre of implementing different
posts and services-- developmental schemes
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 22 of 133
(a) for all or any of the Grama relating to different
Sasan within the State or levels of Panchayats in
a part thereof; or the State; and
(b) for all Grama Sasans and (b) ―VAWs‖ shall mean the
Samitis a district together Village Agriculture
with the Parishad; or Workers appointed for
(c) for all Grama Sasans extension of agricultural
together with all Samitis activities in the State.
and Parishads within the (3) Subject to the general
State, superintendence and
and all matters incidental or overall control of the
ancillary thereto and in the event Grama Panchayat, the
of any conflict between the Executive Officer shall
provisions of any other law as function under the
aforesaid and the provisions of control and supervision
this Act, and the rules made of the Director, Collector
thereunder the latter shall and District Panchayat
prevail. Officer.
123. Powers, duties and 123. Secretary and other
functions of Secretary.-- employees of Grama
Subject to such general or Sasan.--
special orders issued from (1) Subject to such general
time to time by the State or special order as may
Government in that behalf be made in this behalf
the Secretary of the Grama by the State
Sasan shall-- Government, a Grama
(a) maintain the records of the Panchayat may appoint
proceedings of the a Secretary and such
meetings of the Grama other employees for the
Panchayat. Grama Sasan as may
(b) remain in custody of all be necessary for
records and documents, enabling the Grama
cash and valuable Panchayat to perform
securities belonging to or its functions who shall
vested in or under the discharge such duties
direction, management or and perform such
control of the Grama functions as may be
Sasan as prescribed; and prescribed.
(c) exercise such other (2) The expenditure on
powers, discharge such remuneration or
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 23 of 133
other duties and perform allowances of the
such other functions as Secretary and other
may be conferred or staff appointed, if any,
assigned to him by or under Sub-section (1)
under this Act. shall be borne by the
Grama Panchayat.
(3) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary
in Sub-section (1), any
person appointed as a
Secretary prior to the
commencement of the
Orissa Grama
Panchayats
(Amendment) Act, 2004
shall be deemed to
have been appointed as
such under the said
Sub-section and he
shall continue to receive
the remunerations and
other financial benefits,
if any, as were
admissible to him prior
to such commencement.
5.2. Pertinent to notice the provisions contained in Section 122, as amended by virtue of the Odisha Panchayat Laws Amendment Act, 2016, vide Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1112, dated 27.06.2016, stand thus:
―122.Executive Officer of Grama Sasan.--
(1) For every Grama Sasan there shall be a Panchayat Executive Officer to be appointed by the Collector who shall,
(a) maintain the records of the proceedings of the meetings of Grama Panchayats;W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 24 of 133
(b) remain in custody of all such records and documents, cash and valuable securities belonging to or vested in or under the direction, management or control of the Grama Sasan as may be prescribed; and
(c) exercise such other powers, discharge such other duties and perform such other functions as may be prescribed.
(2) The Panchayat Executive Officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall act as such within the local area of such Grama or Gramas as may be assigned to them by the Collector.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Panchayat Executive Officer shall function under the control and supervision of the Grama Panchayat.‖ 5.3. Parliament enacted an Act called "the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005" (be referred to as, "MGNREG Act") for enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
5.4. To strengthen infrastructure at the Grama Panchayat Level and to implement MGNREG Act, the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj Department issued Circular No.17146(19)-RE 51/2005/PR dated 25th August, 2006 to engage one Multipurpose Assistant, namely GRS, on W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 25 of 133 contractual basis in that Grama Panchayat, which does not have a Grama Panchayat Secretary and the Grama Panchayat which will have a Secretary, he shall also perform the work of a GRS. The GRS shall be responsible for proper maintenance of accounts, database in the computer and discharge the duties and responsibilities under the MGNREG Act. The minimum qualification of the candidate has been specified therein as 10+2 pass and preference is to be given to Commerce Stream having Computer proficiency of "O" Level with use of Odia language in Computer. Preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to the Grama Panchayat, then to Grama Panchayat Samiti Area and then to the District in case suitable candidates are not available in the Grama Panchayat or Block. The Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat from out of the panel approved by the Collector shall give contractual engagement to the GRS.
5.5. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the MGNREG Act, the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj Department made a Scheme called "the Odisha Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, 2006 under MGNREG Act, 2005" (for brevity be referred to as "OREGS"), whereby in Paragraph 4 dealing with "Key Agencies and their roles" it is provided that:
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 26 of 133―The key agencies involved in the implementation of the Scheme and their respective roles are as follows:
***
(d) Additional staff such as ‗Grama Rozgar Sevak' (Multipurpose Assistant and ‗Technical Assistants' will be deployed out of the programme cost of the Scheme.‖ 5.6. The petitioners claimed to have participated in the selection process against existing vacancies in response to the Advertisement published for the post of Multipurpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak), and being selected they are stated to have been engaged as GRS under the control and supervision of the Grama Panchayats3.
5.7. Significant it is to take note of that by virtue of the Odisha Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2004, amendment was carried out in Section 122 of the OGP 3 As per Operational Guidelines, 2013 under MGNREGA, at paragraph-4.1, it is provided as under:
―4.1. Grama Panchayat.--
At the Grama Panchayat level, the following dedicated personnel are required:
(i) Grama Rozgar Sahayak or Employment Guarantee Assistant;
(ii) Mates or Work Site Supervisors.
The cost towards recruitment of GRS is the first charge on the administrative expenses under the MGNREG Act. Functions and responsibilities of the personnel required at Grama Panchayat Level are explained below: 4.1.1. Grama Rozgar Sahayak or Employment Guarantee Assistant:
(i) Grama Rozgar Sahayak (GRS) will assist the Grama Panchayat (GP) in executing MGNREG Act works at GP level.
(ii) GRS should be engaged exclusively for MGNREG Act and shall not be assigned any other work.
(iii) The function of GRS and the Panchayat Secretary should be distinctly outlined.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 27 of 133 Act, whereby the VLW working in a district, appointed by the Collector for implementing different developmental schemes relating to different Levels of Panchayats in the State, were required to act as Executive Officers within the local area of such Grama or Gramas as were assigned to them by the Collector.
5.8. In order to regulate the method of recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the post of VLW, the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008 has been introduced with effect from 15.12.2008 in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, relevant provisions of which are reproduced hereunder:
―2. Definitions.--
(1) In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires.--
(a) ―Appointing Authority‖ means Collector of the District;
(b) ***
(c) ―District‖ means the Revenue District of the State;
(e) ―Grama Panchayat Secretary‖ means the Secretary, appointed by Grama Panchayat as per provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968;W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 28 of 133
***
(h) ―Service‖ means the District Village Level Workers Service;
3. Cadre of the service.--
(1) The service shall comprise of the Cadre of Village Level Worker in each district.
(2) The service shall also consist of such other posts in such time scale of pay as the Government may from time to time determine.
4. Recruitment of Village Level Worker.--
(1) The vacancies in the post of Village Level Worker shall be filled up by means of Selection from amongst the Grama Panchayat Secretaries of the District in accordance with Rule 8.
(2) 4[In case of non-availability of eligible Grama Panchayat Secretaries, the posts remaining unfilled, shall be filled up in the following manner:
(i) seventy percent of vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment in accordance with Rule 9; and
(ii) thirty percent of the vacancies shall be filled up by way of selection from among the Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS)].
8. Eligibility criteria and procedures for filling up of vacancies.--
4 Substituted ―In case of non-availability of eligible Grama Panchayat Secretaries the posts remaining unfilled, shall be filled up by direct recruitment in accordance with Rule 9.‖ by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 29 of 133(1) In order to be eligible for appointment to the service, a Grama Panchayat Secretary must have passed High School Certificate Examination or any examination equivalent thereto or have passed the Middle English School Examination or other examination of equivalent standard and have rendered at least fifteen years of continuous services as Grama Panchayat Secretary.
5[(1a) In order to eligible for appointment to the service, a Grama Rozgar Sevak (GRS) must have passed +2 examination or any other examination equivalent thereto, and must have rendered at least five years of continuous services as Grama Rozgar Sevak and minimum skill in computer education shall have to be acquired within a period of six months from the date of their joining.] (2) (a) The Committee shall meet at least once in a year preferably in the month of January to prepare a list of Grama Panchayat Secretaries 6[and Grama Rozgar Sevak], as are held by them suitable for promotion to the post of Village Level Workers taking into account the existing vacancies and the anticipated vacancies of the year.
(b) For the purpose of consideration of promotion, the appointing authority shall prepare a list of all Grama Panchayat Secretaries 7[and Grama Rozgar Sevak] of the District according to their 5 Sub-rule (1a) is inserted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013. 6 These words are inserted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013. 7 These words are inserted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 30 of 133date of substantive appointment in the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary.
(c) The Committee while considering the promotion cases of suitable employees and preparation of the list, shall follow the provisions of--
(i) The Odisha Civil Services (Zone of Consideration for Promotion) Rules, 1988;
(ii) The Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992; and
(iii) The Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Selection for Appointment including Promotion) Rules, 2003.
(d) The list prepared by the Committee for appointment to the post of Village Level Worker and approved by the Collector shall form the Select List.
(e) Appointment shall be made from the select list in the order in which the names appear therein.
(f) The Select List shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of its approval by the Collector, or till another Select List is prepared, whichever is earlier.
9. Procedure for filling up vacancies by direct recruitment.--
(1) In order to be eligible for consideration for direct recruitment to the service, a candidate must satisfy the following conditions, namely:
(i) He/She must be a citizen of India;W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 31 of 133
(ii) He/She must have passed the +2 Examination or any other examination equivalent thereto 8[and shall have to be acquired a minimum skill in computer education within a period of six months from the date of joining] 9[***];
(iii) He/She is able to read, write and speak Oriya and has passed the Class VII Examination with Oriya as a language subject; or passed the High School Certificate Examination or an equivalent examination with Oriya as the medium of examination in non-
language subject or passed a test in Oriya of Middle English School standard conducted by the Education Department of the Government;
(iv) He/She, if married has not more than one spouse living;
(v) He/She must not be less than 10[21 years] and more than 32 years on the 1st day of January of the recruitment year;
(vi) The candidate must have got his/her name registered in any Employment Exchange of the district on or before the date of submission of application to the Collector;
(vii) No extra weightage shall be given for higher qualification than the qualification prescribed for the post.
8 These words are added by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013. 9 The words ―with certificate of proficiency in computer education from any institution duly recognised by the Government of Odisha‖ are deleted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012.
10 The words ―20 years‖ are substituted by the Government of Odisha" are deleted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 32 of 133(2) The Collector shall notify the vacancy for direct recruitment to the service to the District/Sub- divisional Employment Exchange and also shall publish an advertisement in daily News papers indicating the vacancies and eligibility criteria.
(3) 11[On receipt of application from the candidates, the Committee shall scrutinize the same and prepare the merit list taking the percentage of marks secured in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination.] (4) to (9) ***12 11 Following sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 was substituted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012:
―On receipt of application from the candidates, the Committee constituted under Rule 5 shall scrutinize the same and arrange to hold the written competitive examination in the district.‖
12 Sub-rules (4) to (9) of Rule 9 are deleted by the Government of Odisha" are deleted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012. Prior to deletion they stood as follows:
―(4) The date, time and place of the examination shall be intimated to the candidates by the Committee.
(5) Total marks for the test will be 100 broken up as follows:
(i) 60% of the total marks shall be
allotted for written test (60).
(ii) 40% of the total marks shall be
allotted for academic qualification (40).
(6) The written test shall be of the standard of High School Certificate
Examination and shall consist of:
English 15 marks
Oriya 10 marks
Mathematics 15 marks
General Knowledge 10 marks
Computer Knowledge 10 marks
Total 60 marks
In order to determine the marks on the basis of qualification, the following formula shall be adopted:
If % of marks secured by the candidate in +2 Examination. X Marks to be awarded on the basis of academic qualification. = X x 40/100 (7) Syllabus for written test has been appended at Schedule ‗A' appended to these Rules.
(8) The Collector of the district shall get the question papers prepared for the written test.
(9) Final list will be drawn on the basis of total marks secured by the candidates as prescribed in sub-rule (5).‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 33 of 133 (10) 13[The merit list prepared under sub-rule (3) shall, after being approved by the Collector concerned, form the select list for appointment to the service.] (11) The Select List prepared under sub-rule (10) shall remain valid for one year from the date of approval by the Collector.
11. Gradation and inter se seniority.--
(1) The Appointing Authority shall maintain gradation list of Village Level Workers.
(2) The inter se seniority of persons appointed to the Cadre in the particular year shall be in the order in which their names appear in the Select List.
(3) The person appointed by direct recruitment shall en-
block be junior to those appointed on selection in the year.‖ 5.9. A decision has been taken by the Government in Panchayati Raj Department for filling up of vacancies in the post of VLW reserved for the Grama Panchayat Secretaries by way of direct recruitment and by way of selection from among the GRS in terms of VLW Rules, 2008 vide Circular/Letter No.11530-17-PADM-19- 1028/PR dated 20.04.2013, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
13 Following sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 was substituted by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012:
―The Selection Committee shall prepare a Select List of successful candidates who have qualified by such standard as will be decided by them ordinarily within one month from the date of examination and furnish the list to the Collector for approval and the list so approved by the Collector shall form the Select List. The Collector shall issue order of appointment in favour of candidates in the order in which their names appear in the Select Lists. Copies of such lists shall also be furnished to the Director, Panchayati Raj.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 34 of 133 ―Government after careful consideration have decided to allow all the Collectors to fill up the vacancies of the VLW, after keeping the vacant posts of VLW reserved for the Grama Panchayat Secretaries, by way of direct recruitment and by way of selection from amongst the Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) following the provisions contained in Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 as amended in 2012 and in 2013. It is, therefore, requested to go ahead with the process of recruitment of VLW as per the Calendar appended.
The following Guidelines shall be adhered to while going for direct recruitment and selection of Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS):
1. At first, the Collectors will reserve the posts for the Grama Panchayat Secretaries for considering them for the post of VLW by way of selection. Their posts will not be filled up either by way of direct recruitment or by selection from amongst the GRS.
2. Repatriation of the VLW to their parent districts may also be taken into consideration as instructed vide this Department Resolution No.4947/PR dated 07.02.2009 read with this Department Letter No.13890/PR dated 13.08.2012.
Direct Recruitment of VLW:
The direct recruitment of VLW will be conducted by following the provisions contained in the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 as amended in 2012 and 2013 (Copies enclosed).W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 35 of 133
Procedures for Selection of Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) for VLW:
1. Gradation list of Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) for appointment to VLW is to be prepared by the Collector of the district taking their date of joining in the post of Grama Rozgar Sevaks into consideration, provided that when the date of joining of incumbents in the post of Grama Rozgar Sevaks is the same, the incumbent who is older in age shall be treated as senior. He must have rendered at least five years of continuous service as GRS.
2. For the purpose of considering the appointment of Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) the Appointing Authority i.e, Collector of the district shall constitute a Committee under Rule 5 of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,2008.
3. The Committee while considering the cases of suitable Grama Rozgar Sevaks for selection of VLW shall follow the provisions contained in ORV Act and Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 as amended in the year, 2012 & 2013 to select eligible GRS for the post of VLW.
4. The list prepared by the Committee for appointment to the post of Village Level Worker shall form the Select List.
5. Separate select list of GRS for appointment to VLWs shall be, prepared.
Calendar of activities for Direct Recruitment of VLWs W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 36 of 133 Sl. Calendar of activities Time Schedule No.
1. Advertisement for Direct Recruitment By 30.04.2013 of VLWs may be published in at least two widely circulated Odia Dailies (as per suggested format).
2. Closing date for receipt of 15.05.2013 Applications.
3. On receipt of applications from the 16.05.2013 to candidates, the Committee constituted 31.05.2013 under Rule 5 of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 shall scrutinize the same and prepare the merit list of candidates basing on their percentage of marks secured in Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (+2 Examinations) or any other examination equivalent thereto.
4. Approval of the Select List by the By 07.06.2013 District Selection Committee.
5. Publication of result By 10.06.2013
6. Issue of appointment Order by the By 13.06.2013 concerned Collectors.
Calendar of activities for Selection of VLW from amongst the eligible GRS Sl. Calendar of activities Time Schedule No.
1. The gradation list of the GRS will be By 31.05.2013 finally published after inviting objections
2. The Selection Committee constituted By 08.06.2013 W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 37 of 133 under Rule 5 of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 will convene the Selection Committee meeting to select the eligible GRS for the post of VLW.
3. The appointment order will be issued By 13.06.2013 by the Collector 5.10. A Clarification has come to be circulated amongst the Collectors issued by the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department with respect to promotion of GRS to the post of VLW in each district vide Letter No.10453-17- PAD-19-1028/PR, dated 19.06.2017, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
―In inviting a reference to the above cited letters, I am directed to communicate following necessary clarification with regard to promotion of GRS to the post of VLW (Panchayat Executive Officer) for follow up action:
a. The instructions communicated vide Letter No.16817 dated 16.10.2014 not to make in recruitment/ engagement of personnel in the Office of Z.P.P.S, O.P & D.P.O. without prior sanction/approval of Government will hold good.
b. With regard to promotion of GRS, it may be clarified that in case of non-availability of eligible GP Secretaries, 30% of the existing vacancy keeping in view the requirement may be filled up by way of selection from among the Grama Rojagar Sebaks as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Odisha Village Level W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 38 of 133 Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013.
c. The instruction communicated vide Letter No.11530, dated 20.04.2013 regarding procedure for selection of GRS for VLW in the matter of maintenance of ORV Act shall be scrupulously followed.
d. The Letter No.20665 dated 23.12.2015 issued from PR Department is superseded.
Therefore, you are requested to take appropriate steps accordingly in the matter under intimation to this Department.‖ 5.11. It, thus, emanates from the above Rules read with the Circulars and Clarifications that the post of VLW, as re-
designated as PEO, becomes a promotional avenue for the GRS, thereby said GRS is brought into the purview of the VLW Rules, 2008.
5.12. Comprehensive Guidelines for selection and engagement of GRS under the MGNREGS has been issued vide Letter No.6681--II-WE-2/10/PR&DW, dated 06.04.2018, whereby the posts of GRS have been enhanced to 6801 from 6234. It is stipulated therein that ―the selection of GRSs on contractual basis should be done in a fair and transparent manner at the District Level under the overall direction, control and supervision of the Collector-cum- DPCs in the capacity of CEO, Zilla Parishad‖ abiding by the Guidelines. With details of eligibility criteria, W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 39 of 133 constitution of Selection Committee, etc., said Guidelines provided as follows:
―Execution of agreement and issue of engagement order:
Undertaking:
Prior to execution of agreement, an undertaking should be obtained from the GRS as follows:
‗I am quite aware that the engagement offered is purely temporary and for a specific purpose of executing the work under MGNREG Act and this is not a permanent job. Hence, I solemnly affirm that I would not claim my permanent absorption in the job under State Government/Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samities/Grama Panchayats, etc. Further, I undertake not to approach any Court of Law for engaging me on permanent basis under the State Government or any other organization merely on the ground of my engagement as Grama Rozgar Sevak.
[Reference: Letter No.5664, dated 07.02.2008] The Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad will execute an agreement with the GRS in non-judicial stamp paper and issue engagement order (contractual and coterminous with the scheme) If any fraudulent testimonial is detected in future or if he/she has been criminally prosecuted, the engagement shall be cancelled without notice and action as deemed proper will be taken against him/ her as per the provisions of law.
*** W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 40 of 133 Cadre:
GRS will form as a ‗District Cadre' post.
Nature of engagement:
The GRS will be engaged on contractual basis for a period of one year. The selected candidates who join may be engaged in any Grama Panchayat of the concerned District by the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad.
Renewal of contract:
The BDO will assess the performance of GRS of each Grama Panchayat every year as per their job chart. On the basis of the satisfactory performance and recommendation by the BDO, the contract of GRS may be renewed for another one year by the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad; and so on.
Remuneration:
The GRS may be paid a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) which may be revised with the approval of Government. The remuneration may be paid from the Administrative Contingencies of MGNREGS parked at District level. Payment of remuneration may be made through e-FMS.
[Reference: Letter No.7240, dated 27.04.2016] *** Preparation of Gradation List:
Gradation list of Grama Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) at the District level is to be prepared by the Collector-cum-W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 41 of 133
CEO, Zilla Parishad of the District taking their date of joining in the post of Grama Rozgar Sevaks into consideration.
Provided further that in case the date of joining of two more GRSs is same, the GRS older in age as per date of birth in the HSC Certificate shall be placed above the younger.
The provisional Gradation List should be webhosted inviting objection from the GRSs within 30 days from the date of publication and objections so received should be verified and disposed of within 7 days by a Committee headed by the PD, DRDA. The final Gradation List will be approved by the Collector- cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad and webhosted in the District website.
Transfer:
The post of GRS is transferable in nature within the concerned District. The Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad is competent to transfer the GRS from one Grama Panchayat to another Grama Panchayat within the District in view of exigencies of public service or in consideration of genuine grievance or on administrative ground.
[Reference Letter No.8409, dated 21.03.2013 & Letter No.8422 /PR, dated 15.05.2017] *** Termination:
Upon receipt of an enquiry report from BDO or any other Senior Officer on the allegation against the GRS, if the disciplinary authority, Collector-cum-W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 42 of 133
CEO, Zilla Parishad is satisfied that the charges leveled against the GRS are grievous in nature and and proved that the continuance of the said GRS is construed detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and the community as well, the Collector- cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad can terminate the contract A disengage the GRS.
Before terminating the contract, the Collector-cum-
CEO, Zilla Parishad should issue show cause notice against the erring GRS specifying the charges attributable to him/her giving reasonable opportunity to show cause in writing within 30 days from receipt of the show cause notice. If the said GRS desires to be heard in person, he/she may be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person. If the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad is inclined to believe that the reply to the show cause submitted by the GRS is not satisfactory and the charges leveled against him tantamount to gross misconduct, the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad can terminate the contract and discharge the GRS.
*** The Guidelines supersede all previous instructions and is given effect to immedidately.‖ 5.13. While the matter stood thus, in supersession of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, a new set of Rules called "the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021", being published in the Odisha Gazette W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 43 of 133 Extraordinary No. 1214, dated 07.08.2021, is brought into force with effect from 07.08.2021.
5.14. Hence, alleging illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide and unconstitutionality the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 prayed to quash the Notification No.12112-- 17-PADM-19-4781/PR&DW [SRO No.254/2021], dated 29.07.2021, which pertains to the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 and further prayed to extend the promotional benefits to the GRSs in terms of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 as amended in the years 2012 and 2013.
Praying to quash the Rules, 2021, in W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021, the writ petitioners, GRSs, claimed for regularization of their services as also promotion to the post of PEO.
Hearing:
6. Pleadings being completed, on the consent of counsel appearing for respective parties the matter is heard.
6.1. Having heard M/s. Sukanta Kumar Dalai and Amiya Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners; and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties, the W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 44 of 133 matter is kept reserved for preparation and pronouncement of Judgment/Order.
Submissions, arguments and consideration thereof:
7. Sri Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned Advocate submitted that the Rules, 2021 prescribed eligibility criteria restricting the promotional avenue for GRS reaching up to the age of 45 years to the post of VLW/PEO. Sri Amiya Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate supporting the arguments advanced by Sri Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned Advocate submitted that though said Rules, 2021 allows scope for awarding one per cent extra marks of the total marks of the examination for each completed year of continuous service subject to maximum of the fifteen per cent would not enure to the benefit of such GRSs, who have been working for more than 10/15/20 years. Both the counsels sought to project that the GRSs are to compete with the freshers at the distance of time when they have already put in service for such a long period.
7.1. It is vociferously urged that the Gradation List of GRS was prepared and promotions have been given to the post of PEO in seriatim. Nonetheless, in order to discontinue with such modality, the State Government by way of introducing new set of Rules in the year 2021, could not have frustrated the legitimate expectation of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 45 of 133 GRS for a promotion. As GRSs have given their sweat for such a long period, in the name of change of policy by framing new Rules in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners could not be discriminated. Therefore, it is strenuously contended that the Rules, 2021 is offensive as it violates principles envisioned in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7.2. It is, therefore, vehemently contended that the provisions restricting the promotion to the post of PEO by introducing cut-off age and giving additional marks in terms of Rule 7(2) and Rule 8(5) respectively are arbitrary and unreasonable falling within the vice of mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7.3. Referring to Sri Adwait Chandra Jena Vrs. Khandahata Grama Panchayat, 1998 (II) OLR 410 (Full Bench), it is submitted that appreciating the nature of appointment of Grama Panchayat Secretary and authority vested with power to initiate disciplinary proceedings it was held that ―Secretary of a Grama Panchayat does not hold civil post under the State Government, and is not a Government servant‖. However, after amendment of Section 122 and Section 123 of the OGP Act the power of Grama Panchayat to appoint Secretary being modified, taking note of Article 243G of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 46 of 133 this Court in a Division Bench rendered a Judgment on 22.07.2008 in the case of Fakirmohan Das Vrs. Government of Odisha, 2008 (II) OLR 530 held that ―The pre-amended Section 122 also provided that State Government may provide a common cadre of post and service for the Grama Sasans and made it clear that any conflict between the provisions of any other law as aforesaid and the Grama Panchayat Act and the Rules made thereunder, the latter shall prevail‖. Said Division Bench having found amended provision of Section 122 of the OGP Act is in conflict with Rule 212 of the OGP Rules held that ―the Rule, which is in existence conferring different rights and duties to the Secretaries of the Grama Panchayats is automatically taken away by amendment of Sections 122 and 123. However, when sub-section (3) of Section 122 confuses the issue and makes the provision of Sections 122 and 123 inoperative in its amended form and hampers the right of the Panchayats in the matter of self-Government the orders under Annexures-1 and 3 cannot be accepted as legal, valid and in conformity with Article 243G of the Constitution.‖ Having thus held, this Court ultimately declared ―the provisions in Section 122(3) of the Act ultra vires the Constitution‖. In the same breath, it is argued that the Rules, 2021 having tinkered with the scope of promotion of GRS to the post of PEO, it attracts illegality inviting occasion to be declared ultra vires.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 47 of 1337.4. Sri Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned Advocate with reference to the averments contained in paragraph 28 of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021, and placing reliance on Chairman, Railway Board Vrs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 3 SCC 641 submitted that a benefit that was approved under the Rules, 2008 could not be jeopardised by its supersession.
8. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate stood by the supersession of the Rules, 2008 and submitted that after the declaration of Section 122(3) of the OGP Act constitutionally invalid, steps were taken to amend suitably said provision and as of now the PEO is required to function under the control and supervision of the Grama Panchayat and such PEO is to act within the local area of such Grama or Gramas, as may be assigned to him by the Collector. Since there is no anomaly between the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the apprehension of the petitioners is without comprehension.
8.1. The Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 in Rule 1(2) specifies that these Rules would come into force on the date of their publication in the Odisha Gazette. Said Rules being published in the Extraordinary issue of Odisha Gazette bearing No.1214 on 07.08.2021, the same came into force on the said W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 48 of 133 date. This, without any ambiguity, lead to construe that the Rules, 2021 operates prospectively. Since the action or steps for consideration of promotion of the petitioners has commenced when the Rules, 2008 was in vogue, it could not be said that legitimate expectation of the GRS has been defeated, frustrated, or adversely affected.
8.2. Referring to P. Mahendran Vrs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 he advanced his argument that the Rules, 2021 specifying conditions for promotion of GRS to the post of PEO operates prospectively and mere reflection of names in the Gradation List would not ipso facto confer vested right in the GRS to claim for promotion.
8.3. It is, therefore, forcefully urged that the earlier ruling in Y.V. Rangaiah Vrs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 that ―the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules‖ has been overruled by a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in State of Himachal Pradesh Vrs. Raj Kumar, (2022) 15 SCR 847. In view of changed position of law as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India it is submitted by Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate that the Rules, 2021, being framed in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners- GRS cannot be heard to say that these Rules have taken W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 49 of 133 away their legitimate expectation for promotion by adopting discriminatory treatment.
8.4. Drawing attention of this Court to the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024 (for convenience be referred to as "Rules, 2024"), it is suave submission of Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate that realising the difficulties of GRS, said new Rules have been framed making provision that ―Not more than 30% of the Cadre strength shall be filled up by means of section of the eligible GRS under MGNREGA Scheme‖.
8.5. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the writ petition, devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis and discussions:
9. As a prelude to address the issue flagged by the petitioners it may be stated that there is no cavil to the proposition that once the parameter for the promotional post is provided having a statutory flavour, no promotion can be given unless such parameters are fulfilled. Apart from the same, right to be given a promotion is not an indefeasible right, if said promotional post is required to be filled up on the basis of merit to be judged by the competent authority. Right to offer the candidature for W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 50 of 133 the promotional post is an inchoate right, but the right to a promotional post cannot be claimed as a vested right. The view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India expressed in State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Rachna Hills, (2023) 4 SCR 969 is this:
―32. In a recent decision, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vrs. Raj Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 = (2022) 15 SCR 847 = 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50214, after reviewing a number of decisions on the same subject, this Court formulated the following principles:
‗70. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Y.V. Rangaiah Vrs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:
1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah's case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.
2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the ―rule in force‖ as on the date 14 See the decision rendered by this Court in Srikanta Kumar Jena Vrs. State of Odisha, 2024 ILR-CUT-ONLINE 1301.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 51 of 133
consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.
3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the Cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.
5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.'
33. In view of the clear enunciation of the law, we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission made by W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 52 of 133 the learned counsels for the Respondents, that the vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of Regulation 17 of Chapter II, must be governed by unamended Rules.‖ 9.1. To ponder about present issue raised by the petitioners, suffice it to refer to the following observations made in Union of India Vrs. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 1 SCR 982, ―In view of this statement of the law, it is evident that once the structure of Assam Rifles underwent a change following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant Officer, persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer. The intermediate post of Warrant Officer was created as a result of the restructuring exercise. The High Court was, in our view, in error in postulating that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules which existed at the time of the occurrence of the vacancies. As the decided cases noted earlier indicate, there is no such rule of absolute or universal application. The entire basis of the decision of the High Court was that those who were recruited prior to the restructuring exercise and were holding the post of Havildars had acquired a vested right of promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. This does not reflect the correct position in law. The right is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for promotion.‖ 9.2. In P.U. Joshi Vrs. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632, it is stated that:
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 53 of 133―10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 54 of 133 already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.‖ 9.3. Relevant portions of State of Tripura Vrs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty, (2017) 3 SCC 646, are extracted herein:
―9. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, ―rules in force on the date‖ the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in Deepak Agarwal Vrs. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725 in the instant case certain additional posts have been included in the feeder Cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no accrued right nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the Rules as amended. Secondly, the process to amend the Rules had also begun well before the Notification dated 24.11.2011.‖
10. As a Division Bench of this Court was unable to come to a conclusion whether the post of Secretary of a Grama W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 55 of 133 Panchayat15 was a "civil post" under the State Government, the matter being referred to a Larger Bench, in Sri Adwait Chandra Jena Vrs. Khandahata Grama Panchayat, 1998 (II) OLR 410 it was held that the Secretary "does not hold a civil post under the State Government" and "is not a Government servant". In holding so, this Court analyzed the provisions of Rules 212 to 217 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 (for short, "OGP Rules, 1968") which applied to different posts including Secretary. Reference was also made to Section 122 of the OGP Act, which dealt with Officers 15 Whereas the term "Grama" has been defined in Section 2(g) of the OGP Act to mean ―a Grama constituted under Section 3‖, "Grama Panchayat" has been defined in Section 2(j) to mean ―the Executive Committee of the Grama Sasan established under Section 7‖. Section 3 of the OGP Act reads thus:
―3. Constitution of Grama.--
(1) The State Government may for the purposes of this Act by declaration notified in the Gazette constitute any village or group of contiguous villages as a Grama and assign to such Grama, a name which shall be of one of the villages comprised within the Grama.
Explanation.--
Village intervened only by forest areas, hills, streams, rivers and such other natural barriers, and lands not forming part of any village may be treated as contiguous villages:
Provided that in the Scheduled Areas, a Grama shall ordinarily consist of a habitation or group of habitations, a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community or communities and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs. (2) Wherever the State Government deem it fit so to do they may cancel any notification in respect of a Grama under Sub-Section (1) or may alter the area comprised in a Grama by reducing or adding to the number of villages comprised within such Grama and by declaration notified in the Gazette constitute such altered area or areas as a Grama or Gramas, as the case may be, for the purposes of the said Sub-Section. (3) No Grama shall, so far as may be reasonably practicable, be constituted with a population of less than two thousand and more than ten thousand but in no event shall a village be divided and a part thereof included within a Grama.
7. Grama Panchayat to be the executive authority of the Grama Sasan.--
There shall be for every Grama Sasan a Grama Panchayat as hereinafter constituted which shall be the executive authority of the Grama Sasan.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 56 of 133 and Servants of Grama Sasan16. The entire discussion was, therefore, about the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat and the Full Bench concluded in Paragraph 11 as under:
―11. A conspectus of the provisions makes it clear that under the Act and the Rules the power to appoint a Secretary and to take disciplinary action against him vests with the Grama Panchayat. Power of removal also vests with the Grama Panchayat. The relationship between the Grama Panchayat and the Secretary is that of master and servant, and State cannot be said to be the master of the latter. That being the position, the conclusion is inevitable that Secretary of a Grama Panchayat does not hold civil post under the State Government, and is not a Government servant.‖ 10.1. In the present case, the concern is with respect to the post of GRS and not the post of the Secretary of Grama Panchayat to whom the above Rules 212 to 217 of the 16 The term "Grama Sasan" has been defined in Section 2(h) of the OGP Act to mean "a Grama Sasan established under Section 4." and provisions of Section 4 of said Act read as follows:
―4. Constitution and incorporation of Grama Sasan.-- (1) For every Grama there shall be a Grama Sasan which shall be composed of all persons registered by virtue of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950) in so much of the Electoral Roll for any Assembly Constituency for the time being in force as relates to the Grama and unless the Election Commission directs otherwise of the roll shall be deemed to be the Electoral Roll in respect of the Grama. (2) The Grama Sasan shall be a body corporate by the name of the Grama to which it relates, having perpetual succession and common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract land may by the said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Office and headquarters of the Grama Sasan shall be situated within the limits of the Grama and unless otherwise ordered by the State Government in the village bearing the name of the Grama.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 57 of 133 Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules apply. Therefore, the above decision is of no assistance to the Petitioners‟ contention that the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 2021 for promotion of GRS to the post of PEO is violative of either Article 243G of the Constitution of India or Rules 212 to 217 of the OGP Rules.
11. With the above guiding principles as expounded, the present matter is examined whether GRS being given promotion to the post of VLW (re-designated as PEO) prior to enforcement of the Rules, 2021, would have to be accorded with the promotion as per Gradation List prepared by virtue of Letter dated 20.04.2013 of the Pranchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department.
11.1. As the pleadings reveal that it is found mentioned in the Letter bearing No.17146(19)--RE-51/2005/PR, dated 25.08.2006 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department to strengthen infrastructure at the Grama Panchayat Level and Panchayat Samiti Level for smooth functioning of the MNREG Act, Multipurpose Assistants (Grama Rozgar Sevaks) are appointed on contractual basis at the District Level under the overall direction, control and supervision of the Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator in the capacity of CEO, Zilla Parishad. The engagement of GRS is made on the following terms:
―Engagement of Multipurpose Assistants (Grama Rozgar Sevak).--W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 58 of 133
i) One Multipurpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak) will be engaged on contractual basis only in that Grama Panchayat which does not have a Grama Panchayat Secretary. The G.P. which will have a Secretary will also perform the works of Grama Rozgar Sevak and will be responsible for proper maintenance of accounts, database in the computer and to discharge the duties and responsibilities under NREGA.
The minimum qualification of the candidate should be 10+2 pass, and preference should be given to Commerce Stream having Computer Proficiency of ‗O' Level with use of Oriya language in Computer.
ii) Selection will be strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the 10+2 examination and shall be made at the district level by a Committee headed by the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, other members of the Committee being nominated by Collector-cum- CEO. Like-wise Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad is also competent to take disciplinary action including removal for unsatisfactory performance, indiscipline or otherwise after getting feedback from concerned Grama Panchayat through Programme Officer.
iii) Preference will be given to the candidates belonging to the Grama Panchayat, then to the Panchayat Samiti area and then to the District in case suitable candidates are not available in the GP or Block.
iv) The Sarpanch of the Grama Pancyhayat from out of the panel approved by the Collector shall give contractual engagement to the Grama Rozgar Sevak and the person shall stay at the G.P. Headquarters. The consolidated remuneration of Multipurpose W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 59 of 133 Assistant will be Rs.2000/- per month, which will be paid out of NREGSA Programme Fund.
v) The G.P. Secretary wherever present will perform the duties of Multipurpose Assistant (Grama Rozgar Sevak) as required under NREGA.‖ 11.2. From the above it is discernible that the Grama Panchayat Secretary shall perform the duties of the GRS under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and Scheme floated thereunder, but converse is not true. However, the term "Grama Panchayat Secretary" has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 200817, to mean ―the Secretary, appointed by Grama Panchayat as per provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 196818".
11.3. In Rule 3 of the Rules, 2008, the "Cadre of the Service"
has been spelt out, which shall comprise of the Cadre of Village Level Worker in each district and Rule 4 thereof provides for vacancies in the post of VLW is to be filled up by means of "selection from amongst the Grama Panchayat Secretaries of the district". The educational 17 The Odisha Village Level Workers and Lady Village Level Worker (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, stood repealed by Section 13 of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008.
18 The Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 stood repealed by virtue of Rule 135 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 60 of 133
qualification envisaged in Rule 9 stood modified by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2012.
11.4. By way of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013, sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008 stood amended to the following effect:
―in case of non-availability of eligible Grama Panchayat Secretaries, the posts remaining unfilled, seventy per cent of which shall be filled up by way of direct recruitment in accordance with Rule 9 and rest thirty per cent shall be filled up by way of selection from among the GRS‖.
11.5. Rule 8 of the Rules, 2008, as amended by virtue of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013, provided that in order to be eligible for appointment to the "service"19, a Grama Rozgar Sevak (GRS) must have passed +2 Examination or any other Examination equivalent thereto, and must have rendered at least five years of continuous services as Grama Rozgar Sevak and minimum skill in computer education shall have to be acquired within a period of six months from the date of their joining. It further provided that the Committee shall meet at least once in a year preferably in the month of January to prepare a list of Grama Panchayat 19 Rule 2(h) of the Rules, 2008, defines the term "service" to mean ―the District Village Level Workers Service‖.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 61 of 133
Secretaries and Grama Rozgar Sevak, as are held by them suitable for promotion to the post of Village Level Workers taking into account the existing vacancies and the anticipated vacancies of the year and for the purpose of consideration of promotion, the Appointing Authority shall prepare a list of all Grama Panchayat Secretaries and Grama Rozgar Sevak of the district according to their date of substantive appointment in the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary.
11.6. In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules, a Letter dated 20.04.2013 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department directing the concerned to prepare Gradation List of Grama Rozgar Sevak.
11.7. It is demonstrated by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that from the Gradation List of GRS certain engagees/appointees got the promotion to the post of VLW (re-designated as PEO). Therefore, the Rules, 2021 could not have modified putting certain restrictions with respect to the eligibility criteria for consideration of GRS for the post of PEO. It is the argument advanced by the counsels for the petitioners that by abruptly disrupting the selection of GRS for the promotion to the post of PEO from the Gradation List the opposite parties surreptitiously sought to take away their right to be promoted by putting arbitrary and unreasonable restriction. It is submitted that by W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 62 of 133 introducing the Rules, 2021, the GRS are required to compete with the freshers, subject to age restriction, i.e., they are to be below 45 years of age. The State Government, in this manner, have discriminated the GRS for consideration to the promotional post of PEO. Therefore, vehemently attacking the effectiveness of the Rules, 2021, it is submitted that the relaxation in marking pattern would not help the GRS to get the promotion.
11.8. Power to make Rules as conferred by Section 150 of the OGP Act, 1964, is silent about providing for Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service, but the State Government is empowered to frame Rules under said section inter alia to regulate the duties, functions and powers of a Grama Panchayat. Glance at the Rules, 2021 makes it transparent that it is framed in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
11.9. Such exercise of power can find support from observations made in Bhakta Rame Gowda Vrs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 1 SCR 535, wherein it has been stated as follows:
―A Constitution Bench of this Court had held in B.S. Vadera Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 that Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and, therefore, they could be W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 63 of 133 made with retrospective effect. The same principle was reiterated in several decisions, viz., Chief Secretmy to Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. V.J. Cornelius Etc., AIR 1981 SC 1099, P.D. Aggarwal Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 1676, Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334, R.L. Bansal Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 978 and V.K Sood Vrs. Secretary, Civil Aviation, AIR 1993 SC 2285. The view of the Tribunal that the Rules cannot be made with retrospective effect is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. The Rules also were struck down on yet another ground, namely, until the Guidelines have been provided for working out the Rules, the Rules are non est and, therefore; the second proviso is ultra vires. This view also is not correct. The operation of the Rules does not depend on the Guidelines to be laid. Merely because the Guidelines have not been provided in the manner in which the backlog vacancies are required to be filled up, the second proviso to Rule 8 made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 does not become non est. At best, it remains unworkable. The Government is required to formulate the Guidelines under Article 16(4) of the Constitution as to the manner in which the backlog vacancies are required to be filled up. Admittedly, such Guidelines have not been provided including preparing the roster, identifying the backlog vacancies and the placement of the officers between the general and reserved categories which were annexed for the first time along with the counter-affidavit filed in the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the view of the Tribunal is not correct. It may be construed to the extent the second proviso remains unworkable until the Guidelines under Article 16(4) have been issue by the State Government.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 64 of 133 11.10. In V.K. Sood Vrs. Secretary, Civil Aviation, (1993) 3 SCR 772 it is laid down that:
―It would thus clear that the Rules made by the President or authorised person under proviso to Article 309 are subject to any law made by the Parliament and the power includes Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service or post. They are statutory and legislative in character. The statutory Rules thus made are subject to the law that may be made by the Parliament.
In B.S Vadera Vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 118, this Court held that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Act, i.e., if the appropriate Legislature has passed an Act, In its absence the Rules made by the President or by such person as he may direct are to have full effect.
In The General Manager, Southern Railway Vrs. Rangachari reported in (1962) 2 SCR 586 at 596 another Constitution Bench held that equality of opportunity need not be confused with absolute equality as such. What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity and nothing more. Article 16(1) or 16(2) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable Rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office or post. Any provision as to the qualifications for the employment or appointment to an office or post reasonably fixed and applicable to all citizens would certainly he consistent with the doctrine of the equality of opportunity.
In State of Mysore & Anr. Vrs. P. Narasing Rao report in (1968) 1 SCR 407 at 411 this Court laid that the provisions of Article 14 or Article 16 do not exclude the W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 65 of 133 laying down of selection tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for such service as such.
The same was the view in another Constitution·Bench decision reported in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1.
In State of Orissa & Anr. Vrs. N.N. Swamy & Ors. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 508 in paragraph 18, this Court held that the eligibility must not be confused with the suitability of the candidate for appointment.
Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the Rule making power, the President or authorised person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The Rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor-made qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The Rules prescribed qualifications for eligibilily and the suitability of the appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission.‖ 11.11. In the aforesaid perspective of legal position, it is apparent from scrutiny of the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 that the State W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 66 of 133 Government have framed these Rules in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the said Rules the term "Grama Rozgar Sevak" has been defined at Rule 2(g) to mean ―persons who have been engaged as in the Grama Panchayats under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005‖ and the word "service" is denoted at Rule 2(l) to mean ―the Panchayat Executive Officers Service constituted under Rule 320". Having regard to the term "Cadre of Service" as per Rule 3 and the definitions of the words "Service" and "Grama Panchayat Secretary" as per clauses (h) and (e) of Rule 2 of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 makes it clear that the post of GRS is not within the meaning of Cadre of Service of VLW (re-designated as PEO) neither under the Rules, 2008 nor the Rules, 2021.
11.12. Vide Union of India Vrs. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 11 SCR 440 the term „Cadre‟ has been stated to generally denote the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. In the said reported judgment it has been stated thus:
―The word ‗promotion' means ‗advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank, or grade'. ‗Promotion' thus not 20 Rule 3 of the Rules, 2021 deals with "Constitution of the Service" to mean that ―The service shall consist of the posts of Panchayat Executive Officers in each district.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 67 of 133 only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In service law the expression ‗promotion' has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that ‗promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post'. : State of Rajasthan Vrs. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562.‖ 11.13. In Sri Adwait Chandra Jena Vrs. Khandahata Grama Panchayat, 2008 (II) OLR 410 it has been stated thus:
―4. In the context of Articles 310 and 311, a post denotes an office. A person who holds a civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State, except as expressly provided by the Constitution (See Article 310). A post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. Article 310(2) contemplates that a post may be abolished and a person holding a post may be required to vacate the post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 68 of 133 11.14. In the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association, (2000) 8 SCC 4 it has been observed as follows:
―7. Coming to the Circular dated 2.6.1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, it appears that the aforesaid circular had been issued for removal of anomalies in the pay scale of Doctors, Deputy Superintendents and Engineers, and so far as Engineers are concerned, which are in Class I and Class II, it was unequivocally indicated that the revised pay scale of Rs.3000 to Rs.4500 can be given after completion of 5 years of regular service and Rs.4100 to Rs.5300 after completion of 12 years of regular service. The said Financial Commissioner had issued yet another circular dated 16.05.1990, in view of certain demands made by officers of different departments. The aforesaid circular was issued after reconsideration by the Government modifying to some extent the earlier circular of 02.06.1989, and even in this circular it was categorically indicated that so far as Engineers are concerned, they would get Rs.3000 to 4500 after 5 years of regular and satisfactory service and selection grade in the scale of pay of Rs 4100 to Rs.5300, which is limited to the extent of 20% of the cadre post should be given after 12 years of regular and satisfactory service. The aforesaid two circulars are unambiguous and unequivocally indicate that a Government servant would be entitled to the higher scale indicated therein only on completion of 5 years or 12 years of regular service and further the number of persons to be entitled to get the selection W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 69 of 133 grade is limited to 20% of the cadre post. This being the position, we fail to understand how services rendered by Rakesh Kumar from 1980 to 1982, which was purely on ad hoc basis, and was not in accordance with the statutory Rules can be taken into account for computation of the period of 12 years indicated in the circular. The majority judgment of the High Court committed serious error by equating expression "regular service"
with "continuous service". In our considered opinion under the terms and conditions of the circulars dated 02.06.1989 and 16.05.1990, the respondent Rakesh Kumar would be entitled for being considered to have the selection grade on completion of 12 years from 29.01.1982 on which date he was duly appointed against a temporary post of Assistant Engineer on being selected by the Public Service Commission and not from any earlier point of time. The conclusion of the majority judgment in favour of Rakesh Kumar, therefore, cannot be sustained.
***
9. Under the Recruitment Rules which had been made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution ―member of service‖ means an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post and includes in case of a direct appointment an officer on probation or an officer who having successfully completed his probation awaits appointment to a cadre post. In case of an appointment by transfer an officer who is on probation or who having successfully completed the probation awaits appointment to a cadre post.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 70 of 133
10. Under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules, recruitment to the service in the cadre post could be made both by way of direct appointment as well as by promotion in the proportion from different sources mentioned in the said Rule. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 authorises appointment to a cadre post as stopgap arrangement from sources other than the allotted source when a candidate from the allotted source is not available from sources 1 and 3, but such appointee is liable to be reverted to his original cadre when a candidate from the allotted source is available and the period of service rendered by such person shall not be reckoned for the purpose of his seniority.‖ 11.15. It is held in State of Orissa Vrs. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 that, ―11. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as ―the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution‖, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies.
Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to ―improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational‖, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 71 of 133 vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. (Vide State of Bihar Vrs. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union, 1986, (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh Vrs. Haryana SEB, (1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar Vrs. Banking Service Recruitment Board, (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488 and Rakhi Ray Vrs. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637.) ***
14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate.‖ 11.16. On the precinct of aforesaid authoritative propositions of law, though no document showing engagement of the petitioners is found place in W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 placed on record certain letters issued by the Project Director, the District Rural Development Authority through the Block Development Officer and the Sarapanch of the Grama Panchayat and joining reports. Though no individual case could be verified in absence of evidence, perusal of said documents it is elicited that agreement appears to have been entered W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 72 of 133 into by the petitioners with the concerned Sarpanch/ Official of the Grama Panchayat and joined as GRS. The Government of Odisha in Community Development and Village Reorganisation (Grama Panchayat) Department Resolution No.17602-GP, dated 23.09.1989 laid down that those Panchayat Secretaries having age below 40 years with matriculation or equivalent educational qualification on the basis of their experience and eligibility would be selected to work as GRS against 25% of vacancies arose each year. The document, i.e., Letter dated 25.08.2006 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department indicates that the GRS is engaged on "contractual basis" in the Grama Panchayat where the Grama Panchayat had no Panchayat Secretary. It is also provided therein that "the contractual engagements are to be effected by the Bodies, such as, Zilla Parishad/ Panchayat Samiti or Grama Panchayat, and the Government will in no way be associated at any stage of such appointment". It is very much transparent from the Comprehensive Guidelines of Panchayati Raj Department vide Letter, dated 06.04.2018 that a Screening Committee having scrutinized the applications, the Selection Committee would consider the engagement of GRS based on eligibility criteria specified therein. Each selected candidate has to execute agreement by furnishing "undertaking" to the effect that the engagement was purely temporary and for a specific W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 73 of 133 purpose of executing the work under the MGNREG Act. The agreement would be followed by the engagement letter with specification that it is "contractual and coterminous with the Scheme".
11.17. The binding nature of "undertaking" was discussed in High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vrs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 6 SCR 781 in the following terms:
―The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.‖ 11.18. The said Guidelines further stipulate that the Block Development Officer assessing the performance of GRS of each Grama Panchayat every year as per the job chart, being satisfied with the performance may recommend for renewal of agreement with the GRS for "another one year". Clarity is apparently spelt out in the said Guidelines of 2018 that the agreement engaging GRS would have to be renewed each year subject to satisfactory performance.
11.19. In Krupajal SHG, Balasore Vrs. State of Odisha, W.A. No.907 of 2025, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2025, this Court posited the term "renew" in the following:W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 74 of 133
―5. The observation of the Single Bench that at the time of considering the prayer for renewal of the engagement of respondent Nos.5 and 6 the appellant should not be ignored, cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that an inchoate and/or vested right is created into the appellant for engagement. Once the engagement does not appear to be in consonance with the scheme as the renewal postulates existence of an original, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the decision of the Government.
5.1. Apart from the same, the renewal etymologically relates to a word ‗re', which means ‗again' and ‗newal' means ‗afresh'. It means ―again afresh‖ which postulates the existence of an earlier contract and/or engagement, otherwise it would frustrate the very object of the word ‗re' introduced before the word ‗newal'. Since the appellant was not engaged earlier, the question of renewal of the engagement does not arise and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Government. The ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench does not appear to be infirm and/or illegal.‖ 11.20. The legal parlance of the term "renewal" has been discussed in Gajraj Singh Vrs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1996) Supp.6 SCR 172, wherein it is stated as follows:
―This may be angulated from yet another legal perspective, namely, consequences that would flow from the meaning of the word ‗renewal' of a permit under Section 81 of the Act. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word ‗renewal' at page 1296 thus:W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 75 of 133
‗The act of renewing or reviving. A revival or rehabilitation of an expiring subject; that which is made anew or re- established. The substitution of a new right or obligation for another of the same nature. A change of something old to something new. To grant or obtain extension of;' In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's ―The Law Lexicon‖ (Reprint Edition 1987), the word ‗renewal' is defined at page 1107 to mean ‗a change of something old for something new. The renewal of a ‗license' means a new license granted by way of renewal'. the renewal of a negotiable bill or note is regarded simply as a prolongation of the original contract. The office of a ‗renewal', as it is termed, of a life policy, is to prevent discontinuance or forfeiture.
In Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. Vrs. Bisawanath Banerjee & Anr., (1989) Supp.1 SCC 487 at 496 in para 14, this Court drew the distinction between the meaning of the words extension and renewal. It was held that a distinction between extension and renewal is chiefly that in the case of renewal, a new lease is required while in the case of extension the same lease continues in force during additional period by the performance of stipulated act. In other words, the word ‗extension' when used in its proper and usual sense in connection with a lease, means prolongation of the lease.
It is settled law that grant of renewal is a fresh grant though it breaths life into the operation of the pervious lease or licence granted as per existing appropriate provisions of the Act, rules, or orders or acts intra vires or as per the law in operation as on the date of renewal. The right to get renewal of a permit under the Act is not a vested right but a privilege subject to fulfilment of the conditions precedent enumerated under the Act. Under Section W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 76 of 133 58 of the Repealed Act, renewal of a permit is a preferential right and refusal thereof is an exception. But the Act expresses different intention. Sections 66, 70, 71 and 80 prescribe procedure for making application and compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. Existence of the provisions of the Act consistent with the Repealed Act is a pre-condition.·Grant of renewal under Section 81 is a discretion given to the authority (STA or RTA) subject to the conditions and the requirement of law. Discretion given by a statute connotes making a choice between competing considerations according to rules of reason and justice and not arbitrary or whim but legal and regular. Sections 70 and 71 read with Section 81 do indicate that grant of permit or renewal thereof is not a matter of right of course. It is subject of rejection for reasons to be recorded in support thereof. Therefore, right to renewal of a permit under Section 81 is not a vested or accrued right but a privilege to get renewal according to law in operation and after compliance with the pre-conditions and abiding the law.
In Ambika Quany workis Vrs. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 this Court was to deal with right to renewal of a mining lease under the Gujarat Mines and minerals Concessions Rules. When the renewal of the lease was not granted, due to statutory embargo created by Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, this Court had held that though the right to renewal was in accordance with the rules, with the interposition of the Act for conservation of the forests, it puts an embargo on the right to renewal. Therefore, the refusal to grant renewal of lease was upheld.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 77 of 133In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vrs. State of U.P., (1989) Supp.1 SCC 504 at 523-24 after considering the above ratio, it was held that though the lessees of the mines were entitled to apply for renewal as per the law and clauses in the lease, this Court prohibited obtaining of renewals applying Section 2 of the Forests (Conversation) Act, 1980.
In State of M.P. & Ors. Vrs. Krishnadas Tikaram, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 587 this Court had held that it is settled law that renewal is a fresh·grant and must be granted consistent with law in operation as on that date. In that case, it was held that renewal of mining lease in the forest area for extraction of minerals under the Mining and Mineral Concessions Rules should be consistent with Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Section 2 mandates the State Government to obtain prior approval of the Central Government, renewal granted without. prior approval was subsequently cancelled. When its validity was questioned, the High Court set aside the order. On appeal, this Court reversed the High Court's order and had held that the. Government was not precluded to cancel the renewal of the lease granted without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. The order of cancellation was, therefore, upheld.
There is a distinction between right acquired or accrued, and privilege, hope and expectation to get a right, as rightly pointed out by the High Court in the impugned judgment. A right to apply for renewal and to get a favourable order would not be deemed to be a right accrued unless some positive acts are done before repeal of Act 4 of 1939 or corresponding law to secure that right of renewal. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vrs. Shantilal, AIR 1969 SC 239, this Court had pointed out that before W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 78 of 133 Section 71 of the Electricity Supply Act was amended, the appellant had issued a notice under Section 7 thereof, exercising the option to purchase the undertaking. It was held that a right to purchase the electrical undertaking which had accrued to the Electricity Board was saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.‖ 11.21. It can be culled out that the concept of "renewal" is contradistinguished from the term "extension". The continuance of GRS in engagement is subject to execution of agreement (afresh) with the competent authority each year. Nevertheless, the tenure of engagement of GRS cannot, therefore, be treated to fall within the connotation of "extension". It cannot be dissented that promotion is not a matter of right, and no vested right is created in the employees/engagees as GRS to the post of VLW/PEO even under the Rules, 2021 much less in the Rules, 2008. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, the renewal of engagement of GRS is subject to certain conditions and the GRS is not borne in the "Cadre of Service" under the OGP Act or the Rules framed thereunder; nonetheless, such post of GRS is a contractual post subject to renewal each year on satisfactory performance as per job chart under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and Scheme floated thereunder. Such post is also made coterminous with the Scheme.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 79 of 13311.22. From the above, it is manifest that while Grama Panchayat Secretary is appointed under the OGP Act and Rules framed thereunder, the status of GRS cannot be equated with the Panchayat Secretary. However, eligibility criteria have been fixed for the GRS to get a promotional post of PEO.
11.23. Another significant benevolent development has been promulgated by the Government of Odisha to afford scope for the GRS to have prospects in employment. By way of affidavit the opposite parties in I.A. No.8632 of 2025 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021) asserted that the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 202421 (for short, "Rules, 2024"), by which the GRS engaged under MGNREG Act can occupy regular post besides promotional avenue for the post of PEO under the Rules, 2008. Relevant provisions of said Rules, 2024, which came into force with effect from 27.02.2024, provides for the following:
―2. Definition.--
21 See, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department Notification No.4727─PR-
PADM-ESTT-0009/2020/PR&DW. [S.R.O. No.97/2024], dated the 27th February, 2024, published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.432, dated the 27 th February, 2024.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 80 of 133(f) ―GRS‖ means Grama Rozgar Sevak
(l) ―Service‖ means the Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator Service constituted under Rule 3;
3. Constitution of the Service.--
(1) The service shall consist of the posts of Accountant-
cum-Data Entry Operators.
(2) The posts of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operators in each District shall form separate cadre.
4. Methods of recruitment.--
1. Not less than 70% of the Cadre strength shall be filled up by way of direct recruitment through the Commission and
2. Not more than 30% of the Cadre strength shall be filled up by means of selection of the eligible GRS engaged under MGNREGA Scheme.
10. Procedure for filling up of vacancies by way of Selection.--
(1) A panel list of all eligible GRS shall be maintained at the District level (Zilla Parishad) basing upon their date of engagement. Candidates equal to vacancies arising in a Year against 30% of the sanctioned strength of the Cadre shall be allowed to appear for recruitment through the Commission. In case suitable candidates are not available, the post shall remain vacant to be treated as carry forward vacancy for the next year:
Provided that as a one-time measure, by way of relaxing the provisions of this Rule, those GRS who W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 81 of 133 have completed 5 (five) Years of continuous service on the date of commencement of this Rule, shall be absorbed on regular basis against vacant posts of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operators subject to fulfilment of other conditions of service and relaxation of upper age limit, if required. Subsequent vacant posts created in the cadre of Acct-cum-DEO shall be filled up as per the provisions prescribed in the Rules.
(2) The Schedule and Syllabus for the selection of the eligible GRS to Acct-cum-DEO shall be as decided by the PR & DW Department; however the recruitment shall be conducted by the Commission.
(3) A maximum of three chances shall be allowed to the GRS to pass the recruitment test.
(4) The Recruitment test may be held once each Year, preferably during the month of December.
(5) In order to be eligible for selection, the Selection Board constituted under Rule 11 for the purpose shall consider:
(a) Satisfactory performance report of preceding 5 Years to be issued by the CDO-cum- Executive Officer on the recommendation of the BDO concerned.
(b) Vigilance and Criminal clearance report.
16. Other conditions of service.--
The conditions of service in regard to matters not covered by these rules shall be the same as are or as may from time to time be prescribed by the State Government.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 82 of 13317. Relaxation.--
Where the Government are of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, they may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of employees.
18. Interpretation.--
If any question arises relating to the interpretation of these Rules, it shall be referred to Government in Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department whose decision thereon shall be final.‖ 11.24. This Court, having noticed the policy of the Government of Odisha with respect to accommodating GRS, contractual employees, as reflected in the Rules, 2008, as amended from time to time, the Rules, 2021 and the Rules, 2024, along with comprehensive Guidelines dated 06.04.2018, does not perceive any discriminatory treatment meted out to the GRS. Rather pragmatic steps are taken by the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department to see that their services are regularised and are placed at a higher position. Though certain age restriction has been specified in the Rules, 2021 as eligibility criteria, benefit of additional/extra marks are suggested therein. Furthermore the Rules, 2024 does not seem to have put any condition with respect to age; rather said Rules would accommodate the GRS. The intention of the Government can very well W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 83 of 133 be couched in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 thereof.
11.25. For the reasons set out herein above, the plea of the petitioners in the instant case, therefore, deserves to be dispelled.
12. Valiant attempt is made by the counsel for the petitioners to declare the Rules, 2021 ultra vires the Constitution as it discriminates the petitioners from those who had already got promotion to the post of PEO on the basis of Gradation List of GRS. It is also urged that the Rules, 2021, are incongruous with the avowed purpose enshrined in Article 243G of the Constitution of India.
12.1. The learned Additional Government Advocate referring to Additional Affidavit dated 11.07.2023 filed by the opposite parties submitted that after introduction of the Rules, 2021, realising that mistake had occurred, the Collector, Kendrapara passed the following Office Order dated 26.08.2021:
―In pursuance to Notification No.12112/PR&DW, dated 29.07.2021 of the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, the appointment of Panchayat Executive Officer from the Grama Rozgar Sevaks made vide this Office Order No.677, dated 17.08.2021 is hereby revoked.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 84 of 133 12.2. It is, therefore, submitted that no promotion has been accorded to the GRS after introduction of the Rules, 2021. For the sake of argument but not conceding, if at all any such benefit has been granted, two wrongs cannot make one right. Equality clause cannot be invoked between two unequals. To buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the following principle laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh Vrs. Raj Kumar, (2022) 15 SCR 847:
―9. It is in this background that the employment of a public servant is to be understood. Though the relationship between the employee and the State originates in contract, but by virtue of the constitutional constraint, coupled with the legislative and executive rules governing the service, the relation attains a unique position. Identifying such a relationship as being a ‗status', as against a contract, this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon Vrs. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 185, explained what such a ‗status' constitutes. We have extracted herein below the exposition of the concept of ‗status' as explained by the Constitution Bench for ready reference. In this case, the petitioner Roshan Lal Tandon was appointed as Train Examiner - Grade ‗D'. At the time when he joined the service, the promotion to the next post in Grade ‗C' was governed by certain Rules which later came to be amended. Questioning the amendment, he contended that he had a right to be promoted to Grade ‗C' when he joined the service and such a right could not have been altered by way of a subsequent amendment. Rejecting this W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 85 of 133 argument, this Court explained the relationship of Government employment as a ‗status' as under:
‗6. We pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that there was a contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade ‗D' and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board. It was said that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25, 1958, Annexure ‗B', laid down that promotion to Grade ‗C' from Grade ‗D' was to be based on seniority-cum-suitability and this condition of service was contractual and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no warrant for this argument. It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 86 of 133 Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties, society has an interest. ***
7. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner has no vested contractual right in regard to the terms of his service and that Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the case.'
10. The principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon's case is followed in a number of decisions of this Court.22 The following are the propositions emanating from the principles laid down in these precedents:
(i) Except as expressly provided in the Constitution, every person employed in the civil service of the Union or the States holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor (Article 310). Tenure at pleasure is a 22 Union of India Vrs. Arun Kumar Roy, (1986) 1 SCC 677; Narayana Vrs.
Purushotham, (2008) 5 SCC 416; Brij Lal Mohan Vrs. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC
502. W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 87 of 133 constitutional policy for rendering services under the State for public interest and for the public good, as explained in Union of India Vrs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398.
(ii) The Union and the States are empowered to make laws and rules under Articles 309, 310 and 311 to regulate the recruitment, conditions of service, tenure and termination. The rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of the parties but by the legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by statute or the rules. The services, thus, attain a status.
(iii) The hallmark of status is in the legal rights and obligations imposed by laws that may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government without the consent of the employee.
(iv) In view of the dominance of rules that govern the relationship between the Government and its employee, all matters concerning employment, conditions of service including termination are governed by the rules. There are no rights outside the provision of the rules.
(v) In a recruitment by State, there is no right to be appointed but only a right to be considered fairly. The process of recruitment will be governed by the Rules framed for the said purpose.
(vi) Conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority are governed by the extant rules. There are no W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 88 of 133 vested rights independent of the rules governing the service. [Syed Khalid Rizivi Vrs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575; Hardev Singh Vrs. Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 121].
(vii) With the enactment of laws and issuance of Rules governing the services, Governments are equally bound by the mandate of the Rule. There is no power or discretion outside the provision of the rules governing the services and the actions of the State are subject to judicial review. [Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vrs. Chanan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202].
11. In view of the above principles, flowing from the constitutional status of a person in employment with the State, we have no hesitation in holding that the observations in Y.V. Rangaiah Vrs. J. Srinivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. We have already explained that the status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court in Rangaiah's case has not justified its observation by locating such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new Rules. ***‖ 12.3. It is not in dispute or cannot be disputed that the Rules, 2008, the Rules, 2021 and the Rules, 2024 have been framed by the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department in exercise of powers W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 89 of 133 conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Following is emanated from the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021:
―In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in supersession of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 except as respects the things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Governor of Odisha is pleased to make the following rules to regulate the method of recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the post of Panchayat Executive Officers***‖ 12.4. The Rules, 2021 came into force with effect from 07.08.2021 prospectively. The said Rules saved the ―things done or omitted to be done before such supersession‖ under the Rules, 2008.
12.5. The word "supersede" in law, vide Black‟s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, as referred to in Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vrs. Pawan Kumar Saraf, (1999) 2 SCC 400 = (1999) 1 SCR 74, means "obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal". The purport of "supersession" has been succinctly explained in Union of India Vrs. Glaxo India Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 668 = (2011) 4 SCR 50:
―39. The impugned notification uses the expression ―supersession‖ of the earlier notification. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 90 of 133 the first question that requires to be considered and answered by us is, what is the meaning of the expression ‗supersession' and what is its effect. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‗supersession' to mean ‗the state of being superseded', ‗removal' and ‗replacement'. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon defines ‗superseded' as ‗set aside' and ‗replaced by'. The view of this Court in some of the decisions is that the expression ‗supersession' has to be understood to amount ‗to repeal' and when notification is repealed, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply to notifications.
***
42. In State of Orissa Vrs. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd., 1985 Supp SCC 280 = AIR 1985 SC 1293, the specific question whether on ‗supersession' of a notification, the liability to tax for a period prior to the supersession was wiped out or not, directly arose and was considered. This Court came to the conclusion that the previous liability to tax for a period prior to the supersession was not wiped out In our view, the results that flow from changes in the law by way of amendment, ‗repeal', ‗substitution' or ‗supersession' on the earlier rights and obligations cannot be decided on any set formulae. It is essentially a matter of construction and depends on the intendment of the law as could be gathered from the provisions in accordance with accepted cannons of construction.
45. In Syed Mustafa Mohamed Ghouse v. State of Mysore, (1963) 1 Cri LJ 372 (Mys), the Sugar (Movement Control) Order, 1959 of 06.11.1959 was W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 91 of 133 passed in supersession of the Sugar (Movement Control) Order, 1959, dated 27.07.1959. It was held that in law ‗supersession' has not the same effect as repeal and proceedings of a superseded order can be commenced. In R.S. Anand Behari Lal Vrs. United Provinces Govt., AIR 1955 NUC 2769 (All), it was held that in case of supersession of a notification, the objections and liabilities accrued and incurred under the earlier notification remain unaffected, since the supersession will be effected from the date of second notification and not retrospectively, so as to abrogate the earlier notification from the date of its commencement.‖ 12.6. The distinction between the word "substitution" and the term "supersession" can well be deduced from the following dicta of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra Vrs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., (1977) 1 SCC 643:
―The following passage was also cited from Koteswar Koteswar Vittal Kamath Vrs. K. Rangappa Balica & Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255 = AIR 1969 SC 504 (at page 509) :
(1969) 3 SCR 40 (at p. 47):
‗Learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that the Prohibition Order of 1119 cannot, in any case, be held to have continued after 8th March, 1950, if the principle laid down by this Court in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. Vrs. State of Madras, 1963 Supp (2) SCR 435 : AIR 1963 SC 928 is applied. In that case, Rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, was impugned. A new Rule 16 was substituted for the old Rule 16 by publication on W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 92 of 133 September 7, 1955, and this new rule was to be effective from 1st April, 1955. The Court held that the new Rule 16(2) was invalid because the provisions of that rule contravened the provisions of Article 304(a) of the Constitution. Thereupon, it was urged before the Court that, if the impugned rule be held to be invalid, the old Rule 16 gets revived, so that the tax assessed on the basis of that rule will be good. The Court rejected this submission by holding that:
‗Once the old rule has been substituted by the new rule, it ceases to exist and it does not automatically get revived when the new rule is held to be invalid'.
On that analogy, it was argued that, if we hold that the Prohibition Order of 1950 was invalid, the previous Prohibition Order of 1119 cannot be held to be revived. This argument ignores the distinction between supersession of a rule, and substitution of a rule. In the case of 1963 Supp (2) SCR 435 = AIR 1963 SC 928 (supra), the new Rule 16 was substituted for the old Rule
16. The process of substitution consists of two steps.
First, the old rule is made to cease to exist, and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. Even if the new rule be invalid, the first step of the old rule ceasing to exist comes into effect and it was for this reason that the Court held that, on declaration of the new rule as invalid, the old rule could not be held to be revived'.
In the above mentioned passage, this Court merely explained the argument which was accepted in the case of firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. Vrs. State of Madras 1963 Supp (2) SCR 435 = AIR 1963 SC 928). After doing so, it distinguished the facts in Koteshwar Vittal Kamath Vrs. K. Rangappa Baliga, AIR 1969 SC 504, relating to an alleged substitution of one Prohibition Order by a W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 93 of 133 subsequent order which was found to be invalid. It recorded its conclusion as follows (at p. 509):
‗In the case before us, there was no substitution of the Prohibition Order of 1950 for the Prohibition Order of 1119. The Prohibition Order of 1950 was promulgated independently of the Prohibition Order of 1119, and because of the provisions of law it would have had the effect of making the Prohibition Order of 1119 inoperative if it had been a valid order. If the Prohibition Order of 1950 is found-to be void ab initio, it could never make the Prohibition Order of 1119 inoperative'.
The argument before us is that since the word ‗substituted' is used in the amending Act of 1949, it necessarily follows that the process embraces two steps. One of repeal and another of the new enactment. But, this argument is basically different from the argument which prevailed in Koteswar's case (supra) where a distinction was drawn between a ‗substitution' and ‗supersession'. It is true that, as the term substitution was not used there, the old rule was not held to have been repealed. Nevertheless, the real basis of that decision was that what was called supersession was void ab initio so that the law remained what it would have been if no such legislative process had taken place at all. It was held that the void and inoperative legislative process did not affect the validity of the pre-existing rule. And, this is precisely what is contended or by the State before us.‖ 12.7. The word "supersession", as finds place in the Odisha Rules, 2021, framed in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, is construed to be used in the sense as the word "repeal" or the words "repeal and replacement". Using the term "supersession" in said W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 94 of 133 notification, by the expression "in supersession of the Odisha Village Level Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008" all that was done was to repeal and replace the previous Rules. Thus understood, the Rules, 2021, repealed and replaced the Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2012 and 2013 with prospective effect on and from 07.08.2021. The succeeding words ―except as respect the things done or omitted to be done before such supersession‖ contained in said Rules, 2021 are significant, which would be construed to mean the earlier action/process undertaken on the basis of the Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time was not wiped out.
12.8. In view of the settled legal position this Court finds force in the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the earlier actions of authorities concerned that the policy of the employer could not be said to be arbitrary or tainted with malice. As has already been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, having framed the Rules, 2021 and the Rules, 2024 the Government have given scope for the GRS to be regularised and positioned at a better place.
12.9. There is always presumption in favour of the constitutional validity of legislation. This is reflected in R.S. Joshi, S.T.O., Gujarat Vrs. Ajit Mills Ltd., W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 95 of 133 Ahmedabad, (1978) 1 SCR 338 (7-Judge Constitution Bench) wherein it has been laid down as follows:
―A prefatory caveat. When examining a legislation from the angle of its vires, the Court has to be resilient, not rigid, forward looking, not static, liberal, not verbal-- in interpreting the organic law of the nation. We must also remember the constitutional proposition enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn Vrs. Illinoi, (1876) 94 U.S. 113 (quoted in Labor Board Vrs. Jones and Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 33-34-- Corwin, Constitution of the U.S.A., Introduction, p.xxxi) viz 'that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies'. Moreover, while trespasses will not be forgiven, a presumption of constitutionality must colour judicial construction. These factors, recognised by our Court, are essential to the modus vivendi between the judicial and legislative branches of the State, both working beneath the canopy of the Constitution.
*** Expressions like ‗colourable device' and ‗supplementary and not complementary' have a tendency to mislead. Logomachy is a tricky legal trade; semantic nicety is a slippery mariner's compass for courts and the three great instrumentalities have, ultimately, to render account to the justice-- constituency of the nation. The true diagnosis of interpretative crises is as much the perplexity of deciphering the boundaries of constitutional power as attitudinal ambivalence and economic predilections of those who sit to scan the symbols and translate their import. Shakespeare unconsciously haunts the halls of justice: ‗Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought' (Henry IV, Scene 5). In our view, the true key to W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 96 of 133 constututional construction is to view the equity of the statute and sense the social mission of the law, language permitting, against the triune facets of justice high-lighted in the Preamble to the Paramount Parchment, read with a spacious signification of the listed entries concerned. If then we feed this programme into the judicial cerebration with the presumption of constitutionality superadded, the result tells us whether the measure is ultra vires or not. The doctrine of ancillary and incidental powers is also embraced within this scheme of interpretation.‖ 12.10. The averments contained in the writ petitions as adumbrated by the writ petitioners are more on unsoundness of the policy decision of the Government, rather than attacking the subordinate legislation on the legality. The post of Panchayat Executive Officer is a post under the State Government and therefore, their method of recruitment and conditions of service are to be regulated by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Whereas Section 122 of the OGP Act reveals that the PEO is appointed by the Collector, and not the Grama Panchayat, Section 123 of the said Act depicts that the Secretary and other employees of the Grama Panchayat are appointed by the Grama Panchayat and their expenditure on remuneration, allowances etc. are also borne by the Grama Panchayat. The definition of the term "Grama Fund" envisaged in Section 2(i) of the OGP Act to mean that ―a local fund constituted under Section 93‖ makes the position very clear. The PEO functions under the control and W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 97 of 133 supervision of the Grama Panchayat as per Section 122(3). Section 150 of the OGP Act empowers the State Government to frame Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 have been framed by the State Government. Rules 125 to 130 of the Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 lay down the modalities of recruitment of the Secretary or other staff. The source of these Rules can be clearly traced to the enabling provision embodied in Section 123 of the Act. On the other hand, the Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 does not provide for any modalities or procedure for appointment of PEOs. The PEO is essentially an employee of the State Government who is appointed by the Collector, whose remuneration is borne by the State Government. PEO is governed by the OGP Act only to the extent of the duties enumerated under Section 122. The method of appointment and conditions of service though fall outside the purview of the Act, in view of Section 122(3), the PEO is to function under the control and supervision of the Grama Panchayat. In such view of the matter it is misnomer to say that the State Government have exceeded jurisdiction by bringing out the Rules, 2021 in contradiction to avowed purport of the provisions contained in Article 243G of the Constitution of India23.
23 Article 243G of the Constitution of India reads thus:
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 98 of 13312.11. In a case where the selection process of "Jogana Sahayak" in a Grama Panchayat in connection with "Public Distribution System" for the purpose of "promoting institutions to become Fair Price Shop Retailers and Selection Procedure for Jogana Sahayak"
was challenged in the perspective of Article 243G of the Constitution of India, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakanti Sahu Vrs. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 2636 held as follows:
―19. The short question therefore is whether for appointment to the post of Jogana Sahayak of a ration shop of PDS, the powers of the GP are in any way impaired by the impugned circulars dated 21st and 27th April 2012, issued by the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, Government of Odisha?
***
21. In the present case, we are concerned with the post of Jogana Sahayak and not the post of the Secretary, GP to whom the above Rules 212 to 217 of the OGP Rules apply. Therefore, the above decision is of no assistance to the Petitioners' contention that the procedure prescribed under the ―Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats.-- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to--
(a) The preparation of plans for economic development and social justice;
(b) The implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 99 of 133 impugned circular for appointment of Jogana Sahayak is violative of either Article 243G of the Constitution or Rules 212 to 217 of the OGP Rules.
***
25. The third decision cited by the Petitioners is Fakirmohan Das Vrs. Government of Odisha, 2008 (II) OLR 530 where it was held ‗The State Government has the authority to make provision for functioning of the Grama Panchayats and prescribing the categories of servants to function under it. Therefore, creating the post of Executive Officer as per amended provisions in sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 122 are found to be within the jurisdiction and competency of the State Legislature.'
26. The discussion in Fakirmohan Das (supra) was in the context of the amended Section 122 and 123 of the OGP Act with Section 122 dealing with the Executive Officer and 123 with the Secretary and other employees. The question was whether the Village Level Workers (VLWs) and the Village Agricultural Workers (VAWs) could be under the control of the State Government or exclusively under the control of the GPs. It was noted that Executive Officers of the GPs had been bestowed with all the responsibility relating to ―maintenance of records, registers and cash‖ and therefore, the GPs could not function independently if their services were under the control of the State and not the GPs. It was held that the amended Section 122 takes away the power from the GPs and vests on the Government and therefore, it is ultra vires to the Constitution.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 100 of 13327. In the present cases, we are not dealing with the appointment of Executive Officers of the GPs at all, but only a ―Jogana Sahayak‖. The function of the Jogana Sahayak is in a very limited sphere of assisting in the running of the PDS. Once it has been purely explained by the Government in its counter affidavit that there is no master and servant relationship between the GP and the Jogana Sahayak, no parallel can be drawn either with the Secretary or a Sarpanch or an Executive Officer of a GP and a Jogana Sahayak. These are very different kinds of the posts. The Jogana Sahayak is not in any position of administrative control of the GP at all. That still vests on the Sarpanch, the Executive Officer of the GP.
28. In State of U.P. Vrs. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad, (2013) 11 SCC 783, while interpreting Article 243G of the Constitution inserted by the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court while upholding the right of the State Government to eliminate or modify the authority who should take charge of the grant/cancellation of licences of fair price shops affirmed the observations of the Allahabad High Court, the decision which was under challenge before it and observed as under:
‗23. The High Court has considered the nature of the aforesaid Constitutional provision and held as under:
‗16. In our opinion, this provision is only an enabling provision, it enables the Legislature of a State to endow the Panchayats with certain powers. *** Hence, the Legislature of a State is not W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 101 of 133 bound to endow the Panchayats with the powers referred to Article 243G, and it is in its discretion to do so or not. At any event there is no mention of the public distribution system in Article 243G of the Constitution.' Thus, it is evident that the High Court has taken a view that the provision of Article 243G is merely an enabling provision, and it is not a source of legislation. This view seems to be in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh Vrs. Daya Ram Saroj, (2007) 2 SCC 138, wherein an observation has been made that Article 243G is an enabling provision as it enables the Panchayats to function as institutions of self-Government. Further, this Court noted that such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them, including those in relations to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The enabling provisions are further subject to the conditions as may be specified. Therefore, it is for the State Legislature to consider conditions and to make laws accordingly. It is also open to the State to eliminate or modify the same.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 102 of 133
Therefore, it is apparent that Article 243G read with Eleventh Schedule is not a source of legislative power, and it is only an enabling provision that empowers a State to endow functions and devolve powers and responsibilities to local bodies by enacting relevant laws. The local bodies can only implement the schemes entrusted to them by the State.'
29. In Ricchpal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCC OnLine Raj 396, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the validity of the changed procedure for the appointment of primary school teachers and held that the autonomy of the panchayat is not affected as the power of appointment was still with it. It was observed thus:
‗29. *** though the underlying idea of Seventy-third Amendment in the Constitution by inserting Part IX may be to make Panchayats as vibrant units of Self-Government and local administration in the rural areas to strengthen the democratic institutions at the grassroot level. However, it is entirely dependent on the State Legislature. It further appears that the State Legislature has been reluctant to transfer real powers and have retained with them, or with their officials the powers of supervision, control, suspension, notification of functions, approvals of schemes and the like. Thus, it is incorrect to think that by use of expression ―Self-Government‖ under Article 243(d), the Panchayati Raj has acquired the status as a sovereign body having both Constitutional and W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 103 of 133 Statutory status at par with the Union or the State Government. In fact, the Indian Constitution clearly establishes the dual polity, a two-tier Government System with the Central Government at one level and the State Government at the other. Thus, we are of the view that the tall stand taken by the petitioners that the Panchayats have acquired the status of one of the forms of Government at part with the Union Government and the State Government, cannot be accepted. The use of words ―Self-Government‖ has not made any substantial change with the words ―Local Self- Government‖. It can only be said that the Constitutional amendments have set the tone & spirit and provide a springboard for action.'
30. The Rajasthan High Court in Ricchpal Singh Vrs.
State of Rajasthan (supra), further held as under:
‗45. *** It is of course true that under the unamended provisions, the selection on the post of Primary School Teacher was to be made by the District Establishment Committee but now the same has been transferred to the R.P.S.C. As per the scheme of the Act, there is no change in the appointing authority. The power of appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher including the power to create posts, determine vacancies and give appointment is vested with the Panchayat. However, difference made is that under the unamended provisions, every District Establishment Committee was having their own procedure but now the same has been W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 104 of 133 entrusted to the Constitutional body like R.P.S.C. The Commission shall conduct the examination and send the merit list to the respective Panchayats. The appointments are to be made as per the preference given by the candidates in the respective Panchayats. With a view to maintain purity and uniformity in the process of selection, it has always been considered to take a uniform written test. We need not emphasize that the role of a teacher is central to all process of formal education. Sub- standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system. ***
46. It is well settled that the State has a power to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. *** Thus, it is incorrect to impute motives to the State that by impugned amendment, it intends to interfere with the autonomy of the Panchayats. The purpose appears to be to ensure purity & uniformity in the process of selection of Teachers Gr.III.'
31. The aforementioned decision applies to the present context where we are concerned with the changed procedure in the appointment of Jogana Sahayaks where the selection is done by a Committee which then sends its recommendations to the GP for appointment of the person scoring the highest marks in the selection. Consequently, the Court does not consider the procedure for appointment of the Jogana Sahayak to be contrary to Article 243G of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 105 of 133 the Constitution of India or Rules 212 to 217 of the OGP Rules.‖ 12.12. Having such interpretation that Article 243G of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision, there can be no dissention in opining that the State Government is empowered to promulgate method of recruitment and conditions of service. The scope of judicial review, therefore, while examining a policy of the Government so far as recruitment/appointment of PEO is concerned it is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. Court cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.
12.13. In Balco Employees' Union Vrs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, it has been held that a Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 106 of 13312.14. In Ranga Reddy District Sarpanches' Assoication Vrs. Government of A.P., 2004 SCC OnLine AP 61 it is observed that, ―The concept of Basic structure and Federalism cannot be stretched too far so as to include these Panchayati Raj Institutions also as part of Federal concept in distribution of powers or allocation of powers. A directive in the form envisaged by Article 243G cannot be equated with an enforceable legal right flowing from a Constitutional mandate. Autonomy to these Institutions is only limited autonomy, be it fiscal or otherwise, and the Constitutional directive envisaged under Article 243G has to be interpreted as only a discretionary directive and nothing more.‖ 12.15. The observations in State of Gujarat Vrs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal, (1980) 4 SCC 653 with regard to conditions of service under the Panchayat Act may gainfully be referred to hereunder:
―11. During the pendency of the above appeal, as stated above, the Ordinance was issued by the Governor of Gujarat amending some of the provisions of the Panchayats Act and the said Ordinance was replaced by the amending Act. As the petitioners felt that their interests were adversely affected by the Ordinance and the Amending Act, they filed the writ petitions referred to above.
***
13. It is well known that in India experiment in administration of local Self-Government had been W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 107 of 133 going on for well over a century in almost all British- Indian Provinces and many princely States that were in existence before the commencement of the Constitution. There were laws having local operation under which different kinds of local Self-Government bodies were constituted to enable persons living in different local areas to participate in the administration of such local areas insofar as functions that were delegated to them by law. All those laws continued to be in force even after the commencement of the Constitution. Some of them have since been repealed and replaced by new laws. Municipal corporations, city municipalities, town municipalities, municipal boroughs, district boards, zilla parishads, taluka development boards, town Panchayats, village Panchayats, sanitary boards and town area committees were some of the different kinds of local bodies which were constituted under the said laws and the management of their affairs were entrusted subject to the control of the State Government to elected bodies. Each one of them was treated as a body corporate. Insofar as the staffing pattern of these bodies was concerned, there were at least three classes of persons working under them. Officers holding high administrative posts such as Commissioners of Corporations, Deputy Commissioners of Corporations, Municipal Health Officers, Municipal Educational Officers, District Development Officers and Chief Executive Officers of District Boards were usually drawn from the ranks of the provincial or the State Services and they were deputed to various bodies to discharge functions which were either statutory or non-statutory. Even though they drew their salary and allowances from W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 108 of 133 the local bodies to which they were deputed, they still retained their identity as Officers of the State Civil Service and their services were liable to be withdrawn by the State Government at any time it pleased. There was a second class of officers like Chief Executive Officers of town municipalities who were officers belonging to the Provincial or State local self-Government Service and who were liable to be transferred from one local body to another. There was a third class of Officers and servants of the local bodies who were appointed by them and who were for all intents and purposes the employees of the local bodies by which they were appointed. They could not be transferred from one local body to another. The foregoing shows that in the case of persons borne on the State Civil Service or the Provincial local self-Government Service, the fact that they were for the time being working under a local body and were in receipt of salary and allowances from them did not militate against their status as members of the Service from which they were drawn. That was so because even when they were functioning under local bodies, they were engaged in discharging duties and functions which legitimately belonged to the State Government but which had been transferred to the local bodies with the intention of decentralizing administrative functions and of fostering democratic ideals amongst the people.
14. The first question is whether the Panchayat Service constituted under the Panchayats Act is a Civil Service of the State. The expressions ―civil service‖ or ―civil post‖ are not formally defined. Entry 70 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 109 of 133 refers to Union Public Services and all-India Services, and, Entry 41 of List II of that Schedule refers to State public services. Part XIV of the Constitution deals with service under the Union and the States. In Article 309 of the Constitution, we find reference to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Article 310 of the Constitution distinguishes the defence service from the civil service when it refers to members of a ‗defence service or of a civil service'. But all persons who are members of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or persons who hold any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union are treated as persons serving the Union and every person who is a member of the civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State is treated as a person serving a State. The factors which govern the determination of the question whether a person holds a civil post or is a member of civil service were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vrs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884 = (1967) 1 SCR 679 and Bachawat, J. speaking for the Bench observed thus:
‗There is no formal definition of ‗post' and ‗civil post'. The sense in which they are used in the Services Chapter of Part XIV of the Constitution is indicated by their context and setting. A civil post is distinguished in Article 310 from a post connected with defence; it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State. See marginal note to Article 311. In Article W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 110 of 133 311, a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately, and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State. See the marginal notes to Articles 309, 310 and 311. The heading and the subheading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a post.
15. According to the above decision, the true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is the existence of a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages and remuneration. It is W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 111 of 133 further held that the relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of the factors referred to above in conjunction with other circumstances. Applying these tests, this Court held that a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley who was engaged in the work of collection of land revenue and other government dues and in the performance of certain other special duties was a person holding a civil post under the State. Following the above decision in Superintendent of Post Offices Vrs. P.K. Rajamma, (1977) 3 SCC 94 = (1977) 3 SCR 678 this Court held that persons who were working as extra departmental agents of the Posts and Telegraphs Department were persons holding civil post.
***
21. It is significant that Sections 102, 122 and 142 of the Panchayats Act provide that the Grama Panchayat or the Nagar Panchayat or the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat, as the case may be, shall have such other officers and servants as may be determined under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act and such officers and servants shall be appointed by such authority and their conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed. As mentioned earlier, Section 203(1) of the Panchayats Act provides that there shall be constituted a Panchayat Service in connection with the affairs of Panchayats i.e. Grama and Nagar Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat for the purpose of bringing about uniform scales of pay and uniform conditions of service of the persons employed in the discharge of functions and duties of W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 112 of 133 Panchayats. It may be noted that the Panchayat Service contemplated under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act is a single service for the whole State and it is not a collection of distinct and separate services of each individual Panchayat. That Panchayat Service is a service under the State is again emphasised by Section 206 which authorises the State Government to pool together four classes of persons mentioned therein who originally belonged to four different sources and to allocate them to the Panchayat Service and one class of such persons are those who belong to the State Service. Unless the Panchayat Service is held to be a State Service, inclusion of officers and servants in the State Service will be unconstitutional. Sections 157 and 158 would also be exposed to a similar attack (vide State of Mysore Vrs. H. Papanna Gowda, (1970) 3 SCC 545 = (1971) 2 SCR 831). It is a well settled rule of construction that a court ought not to interpret statutory provisions unless compelled by their language in such a manner as would involve their unconstitutionality because the legislature is presumed to enact a law which does not contravene the Constitution. In the instant case, we feel that there is no compelling reason to hold that the Panchayat Service is not a Civil Service under the State. It is seen that further recruitment of candidates to the Panchayat Service has to be made by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board constituted by the State Government. Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, as mentioned earlier, also refers to State Public Services suggesting that there can be more than one State Public Service under the State. We have indeed a number of such services under a State e.g. police W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 113 of 133 service, educational service, revenue service etc. State Public Services may be constituted or established either by a law made by the State legislature or by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or even by an executive order made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. The recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and servants of the State Government may also be regulated by statute, rules or executive orders. The administration of a service under a State involves broadly the following functions:
(i) the organisation of the Civil Service and the determination of the remuneration, conditions of service, expenses and allowances of persons serving in it;
(ii) the manner of admitting persons to civil service;
(iii) exercise of disciplinary control over members of the service and power to transfer, suspend, remove or dismiss them in the public interest as and when occasion to do so arises.
In the instant case, the Panchayat Service is constituted by the Panchayats Act and the State Government is empowered to make orders and rules regarding its organisation and management. It is true that in Section 203 of the Panchayats Act, it is stated that the Panchayat Service shall be distinct from the State Service. Having regard to the broad features of the Panchayat Service, we are of the view that the said declaration appears to have been W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 114 of 133 made only to distinguish the Panchayat Service from other services of the State attached to the several departments which are under the direct control of the State Government. If the members of the Panchayat Service are not to be the members of a service under the State Government but are to be the officers and servants of the Panchayat unit to which they are allotted then sub-sections (2), (2-A) and 4(a) of Section 203 of the Panchayats Act would to some extent become unworkable as every time there is a transfer of an officer borne on the Panchayat Service there would be a change of master. We do not think that the legislature intended such a bizarre result. Sub-section (2) of Section 203 authorises the division of the Panchayat Service into different classes, cadres and posts. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 203 provides that the Panchayat Service may consist of district cadres, taluka cadres and local cadres and that a servant belonging to a district cadre may be transferred from a post in any one taluka to a post in another taluka in the district, a servant belonging to a taluka cadre may be transferred from a post in any Grama or Nagar to a post in any other Grama or Nagar in the same taluka. Sub-section (4) of Section 203 authorises promulgation of rules providing for promotion of servants in the Panchayat Service to cadres in the State Service. Such promotion is possible only because the State Government is the master of the Panchayat Service. The reason for treating Panchayat Service as a service distinct from State Service appears to be that the law intended that persons belonging to the Panchayat Service should be transferable from one post in a Panchayat to another post in a Panchayat and unless there W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 115 of 133 was an order of promotion, such persons could not be transferred to posts outside the Panchayats.
22. Merely because the Panchayats are declared to be body corporates, it cannot be said that any of the persons working under them cannot be considered as members of a Civil Service under a State. The Panchayats constituted under the Panchayats Act derive their authority from the statute and are under the control of the State Government. They form part of the local self-Government organisation which the State Government is under an obligation to foster under Article 40 of the Constitution. Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution specifically refers to local authorities established for the purpose of local self-Government or village administration as part of local Government. The local authorities are included in the definition of the expression ―State‖ in Article 12 of the Constitution. The Panchayats exercise many governmental functions which the State Government can perform. They are entrusted with the power to levy taxes and to exercise large number of powers which are loosely called as ―police powers‖ regulating several aspects of human life. Articles 276 and 277 of the Constitution also take note of the powers of local authorities to levy certain taxes. In addition to the express powers granted to the Panchayats, the State Government is also authorised under the Panchayats Act to delegate many of its functions to them and to transfer many of its officers and servants to function under their supervision and control as members of the Panchayat Service. It is manifest from the foregoing that it cannot be said that persons working as members of the Panchayat W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 116 of 133 Service are not persons engaged in governmental functions and, therefore, it is not possible to treat them as members of the State Civil Service. We, however, make it clear that it is quite possible that under the statute it may be open to the Panchayats to employ servants for the purpose of administration of the Panchayats who may not be members of the Panchayat Service. We are concerned in these cases only with the members of the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203(1) with regard to whose appointment and conditions of service the Government alone has been entrusted with the power to make rules under Section 203(3). We are of the view that the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act has all the characteristics of a civil service of the State. This also appears to have been the view of the State Government when it constituted the second Pay Commission (Desai Commission) as can be seen from the government resolution constituting the said Commission requiring it to examine the general conditions of service applicable to government employees other than officers of the all-India Services but including employees in the Panchayat Service (vide Resolution No. PDS 1672/1526/P dated November 20, 1972 passed by the Government of Gujarat) and there is no justification for taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Shukla case [8 GLR 833 :
ILR 1967 Guj 560] as early as 1967. Several orders and rules issued by the Government of Gujarat under the Panchayats Act since its commencement also support the aforesaid view.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 117 of 133
23. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to a decision of this Court in Jalgaon Zilla Parishad Vrs. Duman Govind, Civil Appeals Nos. 24 and 25 of 1968, decided on December 20, 1968 on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the State Government in support of the contention that the Panchayat Service cannot be considered as a State Civil Service. In that case, the question which arose for consideration was whether Kotwals who were holding posts under the State Government ceased to be the employees of the Government on the transfer of their services to zilla parishads. This Court held that they ceased to be government servants as they had been transferred to the services of the zilla parishads. That decision turned on the true construction of Section 239 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 which provided for the constitution by the State Government as from the appointed day of a District Technical Service (Class III), a District Service (Class III) and a District Service (Class IV) for each zilla parishad. We do not have a corresponding provision in the Panchayats Act providing for the constitution of a service for each Panchayat but on the other hand, the statutory requirement is that a Panchayat Service should be constituted in respect of all the Panchayats i.e. District Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Grama and Nagar Panchayats. Such a common service constituted for the benefit of all Panchayats leads to the inevitable conclusion that the State alone can be the master of the members of that Service and not the individual Panchayats. The decision relied on has, therefore, no bearing on the question before us. We, therefore, reject the contention of the State Government that W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 118 of 133 the Panchayat Service is not a Civil Service under the State. We, however, make it clear that the view taken by us in the present case does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that every employee of a local body who is not a member of the Panchayat Service should be treated as a member of the State Civil Service. It is a question of fact to be decided in each case depending on the circumstances of that case.
***‖ 12.16. Taking cue from the above pronouncement that the Panchayat Service is not outside the purview of State Civil Service, it can safely be held that the post of PEO could be filled up by way of direct recruitment with restrictions. For a GRS to be eligible for the promotional post of PEO, as promotion is not a matter of course, reasonable restrictions contained in Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 cannot be said to be violative of constitutional provisions. It could not be successfully demonstrated by the petitioners that the Rules, 2021 has taken away the promotional avenue and the change of policy introducing such Rules could affect their right inasmuch as the GRS is a contractual post. So long as vested right is not accrued the change in policy would have no impact. On the satisfactory performance, each year the service of GRS gets renewed, but not extended. Change of policy is the domain of the appropriate Government. The Rules, W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 119 of 133 2021 with modified eligibility conditions for the GRS, who are not borne in the Cadre of VLW or PEO, cannot question the restrictions on the specious plea of "legitimate expectation" vis-a-vis equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not be said that the Rules, 2021 has impinged upon any of the right of the GRS and there is no unreasonableness in the provisions.
12.17. The learned counsel for the petitioners having relied upon Chairman, Railway Board Vrs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) Supp (3) SCR 63 submitted that the right to get promotion has been arbitrarily taken away by way of incorporating stringent conditions and/or change of policy. This Court, having noticed that the said judgment is distinguishable on factual matrix24, would wish to refer to the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India (3-Judge Bench) in the case of The Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority Vrs. Narender Kumar, (2022) 4 SCR 480:
24 In Union of India Vrs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu, (2011) 7 SCC 397 it is as a precept has been laid down that, ―Before examining the first limb of the question, formulated above, it would be instructive to note, as a preface, the well-settled principle of law in the matter of applying precedents that the Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the fact situation of the case before it fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper because one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. [Ref. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vrs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579; Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV) Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 1 SCC 494 and Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. Vrs. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board, (2010) 2 SCC 273].‖ W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 120 of 133 ―33. The concept of ―vested right‖ has arisen for consideration before this court in several contexts especially with respect to alteration of service condition of public employees. That the Central Government in the exercise of its legislative powers conferred under provision of Article 309 of the Constitution can frame Rules which has the force of law has been settled several decades ago. This Court has also held that such rules can be made to operate from anterior date by giving retrospective effect to them. The determination of an anterior date for the operation of a rule which has the effect of nullifying or refacing intervening events or invalidating benefits which had been granted to public employees was held to be unconstitutional in State of Gujarat Vrs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCR 287. Several previous judgments of this Court dealing with the question that what is accrued or vested right were considered in Chairman, Railway Board Vrs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, 1997 Supp (3) SCR 63 wherein the impugned rule in question sought to disturb the method of calculating the last pay drawn for the purposes of pension and related allowances. This impacted the pension disbursement of a large number of employees who had retired much earlier.
The court observed that the amendments applied to employees who had already retired and were no longer in service on the date the impugned notifications were issued, and adversely impacted the pension they were drawing. In such context the court held as impermissible, those benefits which accrued or in other words had been actually enjoyed and were taken away by the devise of giving W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 121 of 133 retrospective effect to the rule. The Court observed as follows:
‗22. In State of Gujarat Vrs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCC 33 decided by a Constitution Bench of the Court, the question was whether the status of ex-ministerial employees who had been allocated to the Panchayat service as Secretaries, Officers and Servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 as Government servants could be extinguished by making retrospective amendment of the said Act in 1978. Striking down the said amendment on the ground that it offended Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution, this Court said:
‗52. *** The Legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's and don'ts of the Constitution, neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 122 of 133 twenty years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A Legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the twenty years.
That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history.'
23. The said decision in Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 of the Constitution Bench of this Court has been followed by various Division Benches of this Court. (K.C. Arora Vrs. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623;
T.R. Kapur Vrs. State of Haryana, (1987) 1 SCR 584; P.D. Aggarwal Vrs. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCR 427; K. Narayanan Vrs. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 44; Union of India Vrs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, (1994) 5 SCC 450 and K. Ravindranath Pai Vrs. State of Karnataka, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 246).
24. In many of these decisions the expressions ―vested rights‖ or ―accrued rights‖ have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 123 of 133 time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon, (1968) 1 SCR 185, B.S. Vedera, (1968) 3 SCR 575 and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCR 287.
34. In the present context, none of the employees actually earned a second financial up-gradation. They undoubtedly became eligible for consideration. However, the eligibility ipso facto could not, having regard to the terms of the ACP scheme translate into an entitlement. The eligibility was, to put it differently, an expectation. To be entitled to the benefits, the public employer (here DDA) had to necessarily review and consider the employees' records, to examine whether they fulfilled the eligibility conditions and, based on such review individual orders had to be made by DDA. In other words, second ACP up-gradation was not automatic but dependant on external factors. Furthermore, as held by this Court in Union of India Vrs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421, MACP benefits are only an incentive meant to relieve stagnation- framed under the executive policy. Its continued existence cannot be termed as an enforceable right.
35. Such expectation is akin to a candidate being declared successful in a recruitment process and whose name is published in the select list. That, W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 124 of 133 such candidate has no vested right to insist that the public employer must issue an employment letter, has been held by a Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash Vrs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 = (1991) 2 SCR 567. Therefore, it is held that employees' contention that they acquire a vested right in securing the second ACP benefit is insubstantial.‖ 12.18. In view of legal principles set forth by the Court(s), untrammelled view is that as the process for promotion to the post of PEO had not been initiated by the date of supersession of the Rules, 2008, it could not be said that the right to get promotion matured before the Rules, 2021 came into force.
12.19. To have clarity on the issue of change of policy vis-
a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India, regard may be had to following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Kuldeep Singh Vrs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702:
―20. Here, however, the State had made a change in its policy decision of opening the doors to the private entrepreneurs evidently with a view to earn more revenue. It represented to the applicants that their cases would be considered on their own merits. Such consideration was, thus, required to be fair and reasonable. Although dealing in liquor as has rightly been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General is not a fundamental right, but indisputably the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India would apply.W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 125 of 133
21. In State of M.P. Vrs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 whereupon the learned Additional Solicitor General himself relied upon, this Court stated:
‗No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14.' See also Ashok Lanka Vrs. Rishi Dikshit, (2006) 9 SCC 90.
22. Moreover, if the equality clause applied, the State could not have adopted different procedures for different applicants. (See Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.)
23. The learned Additional Solicitor General furthermore failed to give any satisfactory answer to a query made by us as to how on the face of such policy decision, which according to the State was strictly adhered to, licences had been granted to six other persons. We would, however, like to place on record the statements made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the State would take action for cancellation of the licences of the said licensees.
24. The State had adopted a policy to grant licence on a first-come, first-served basis. It had in terms of the public notice dated 7.2.2005, intended to grant licences for 70 vends. Not only the terms and conditions for grant of such licences have been specified, the mode and manner in which such W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 126 of 133 applications were to be filed had also been specified.
As noticed hereinbefore, even time-frame therefor was fixed.
25. It is, however, difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee that the doctrine of ―legitimate expectation‖ is attracted in the instant case. Indisputably, the said doctrine is a source of procedural or substantive right. (See R. Vrs. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan, 2001 QB 213. But, however, the relevance of application of the said doctrine is as to whether the expectation was legitimate. Such legitimate expectation was also required to be determined keeping in view the larger public interest. Claimants' perceptions would not be relevant therefor. The State actions indisputably must be fair and reasonable. Non-arbitrariness on its part is a significant facet in the field of good governance. The discretion conferred upon the State yet again cannot be exercised whimsically or capriciously. But where a change in the policy decision is valid in law, any action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, cannot be invalidated.
***
30. Unless, therefore, an accrued or vested right had been derived by the appellants, the policy decision could have been changed.
***
33. The question again came up for consideration in Howrah Municipal Corpn. Vrs. Ganges Rope Co.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 127 of 133Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 663 wherein this Court categorically held:
‗The context in which the respondent Company claims a vested right for sanction and which has been accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court, is not a right in relation to ‗ownership or possession of any property' for which the expression ‗vest' is generally used. What we can understand from the claim of a ‗vested right' set up by the respondent Company is that on the basis of the Building Rules, as applicable to their case on the date of making an application for sanction and the fixed period allotted by the Court for its consideration, it had a ‗legitimate' or ‗settled expectation' to obtain the sanction. In our considered opinion, such ‗settled expectation', if any, did not create any vested right to obtain sanction. True it is, that the respondent Company which can have no control over the manner of processing of application for sanction by the Corporation cannot be blamed for delay but during pendency of its application for sanction, if the State Government, in exercise of its rule-making power, amended the Building Rules and imposed restrictions on the heights of buildings on G.T. Road and other wards, such ‗settled expectation' has been rendered impossible of fulfilment due to change in law. The claim based on the alleged ‗vested right' or ‗settled expectation' cannot be set up against statutory provisions which were brought into force by the State Government by amending the Building Rules and not by the Corporation against whom such ‗vested right' or ‗settled expectation' is being sought to be enforced. The ‗vested right' or ‗settled expectation' has been W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 128 of 133 nullified not only by the Corporation but also by the State by amending the Building Rules. Besides this, such a ‗settled expectation' or the so-called ‗vested right' cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation issued thereupon.'
34. In Union of India Vrs. Indian Charge Chrome, (1999) 7 SCC 314 again this Court emphasised:
‗The application has to be decided in accordance with the law applicable on the date on which the authority granting the registration is called upon to apply its mind to the prayer for registration.' ***
36. In a case of this nature where the State has the exclusive privilege and the citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor, in our opinion, the policy which would be applicable is the one which is prevalent on the date of grant and not the one, on which the application had been filed.
If a policy decision had been taken on 16.09.2005 not to grant L-52 licence, no licence could have been granted after the said date.
37. In any event the period for which licences could be directed to the appellants has since expired. This Court, thus, cannot direct grant of licence for the next year only because some licences had been granted after 09.03.2005. Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept. Equality cannot be claimed in illegalities. (See State of U.P. Vrs. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330. We have moreover noticed hereinbefore, the statement made W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 129 of 133 by the learned Additional Solicitor General that steps would be taken for cancellation of licences of those licensees who had been granted licence after the said date. We do not intend to make any further observation in regard thereto.
38. It is true that some licences had been granted, but the same cannot by itself be a ground to issue a writ of mandamus, particularly in view of the fact that the appellants have no legal right in respect thereof.‖ 12.20. In Virender S. Hooda Vrs. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696 it has been held that:
―4. *** When a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same.‖ 12.21. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hardev Singh Vrs.
Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 121 went on to hold that, ―In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. This Court would normally not interfere in such policy decisions.‖ 12.22. With the above enunciation of law regarding policy, parity of treatment to the petitioners could not be claimed as a matter of right though some of the GRS whose names appeared in the Gradation List were given promotion to the post of PEO in terms of Rules, 2008, as W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 130 of 133 amended in 2012 and 2013. However, it is matter on record that erroneous promotion accorded after promulgation of the Rules, 2021, the same were rectified. The eligibility of GRS to the post of PEO is to be tested as per the Rules, 2021, but not when Gradation List was prepared or the vacancies occurred. Even if vacancies fell prior to the Rules, 2021 came into force, filling up of vacancies would be governed by said Rules of 2021, but not the Rules, 2008. Filling of vacant posts is the domain of the employer.
12.23. It is noteworthy that the Government of Odisha being considerate, through Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department they have promulgated the Rules, 2024 and granted accommodation or scope for the GRS in the Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator Service in terms of Rule 10 thereof as one-time measure. This is, of course, not in derogation to what is specified in the Rules, 2021.
12.24. Therefore, this Court repels the contention of the petitioners that the GRS, who are left out of the Gradation List to be promoted to the post of PEO, are discriminated. Neither vested right has accrued nor was there legitimate expectation in the post of PEO inasmuch as GRS, being contractual employees, are not borne in the Cadre of Service.
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 131 of 13312.25. In the wake of the above, the interest of the petitioners, working as GRS, being adequately protected this Court declines to interfere with the actions taken or to be taken by the State Government in terms of the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 and the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024.
Conclusion:
13. It is not now in dispute for the proposition that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing Rules, namely, "Rules in force on the date"
the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled up by the law existing on the date when they arose. It is settled that the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed Rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government.
14. The reasonableness of the eligibility criteria put in place in the Odisha Panchayat Executive Officers Service W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 132 of 133 (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 could not be successfully defeated by the petitioners. Merely because restriction of age to participate with the freshers for the post of PEO is introduced in the said Rules, nothing can be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024 with clarity protected the larger interest of the GRS.
15. Ergo, under the above premises, the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
15.1. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of 15.2. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal
Assistant (Secretary-in-
charge) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH The 15th January, 2026//Aswini/MRS/Laxmikant
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jan-2026 18:41:17
W.P.(C) No.22812 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.22464 of 2021 Page 133 of 133