The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) Nos.3792, 3989 & 3990 of 2013, W.P.(C) No.17908,18283 & 18285 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. ……………… WPC(OAC) No.3792 of 2013 Prafulla Kumar Purohit …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. D.N. Rath. For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. WPC(OAC) No.3989 of 2013 Bulu Panigrahi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. D.N. Rath. For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. WPC(OAC) No.3990 of 2013 Netrananda Satapathy …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties // 2 // For Petitioner : M/s.J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. D.N. Rath. For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. W.P.(C) No.17908 of 2023 Sudhir Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu. For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. W.P.(C) No.18283 of 2023 Sambhuprasad Biswal …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu. For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. -AND- W.P.(C) No.18285 of 2023 Kodanda Bhusan Selma …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s.B.K. Hati & R.K. Sahu. For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel Mr.H.K. Panigrahi, ASC. Page 2 of 34 // 3 // PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:31.07.2023 and Date ofJudgment:13.10.2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. All these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir on 04.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Village Agricultural Worker (VAW) on contractual basis in the Revenue District of Bolangir. Further prayer has been made to quash the order passed by the Director of Agriculture & Food Production on 25.10.2013 in rejecting the claim for relaxation of the age and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 to issue a corrigendum in terms of the order passed by this Court in its judgment reported in 2008(2) OLR (Sudhir Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha) and subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18594/2008. Since the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is identical, all the matters were
Decision
heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. Page 3 of 34 // 4 // 2. It is the case of the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions that Director of Agricultural and Food Production when issued an advertisement on 18.05.2008 inviting applications to fill up vacant posts of VAW and lady VAW on contractual basis in different districts of the State, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. This Court vide its order dtd.14.08.2008, while quashing the advertisement disposed of the writ petition inter alia with the following order:- “We are not on the question whether the petitioner will be selected or not. The entire dispute revolves round the question whether the Rules framed by the Government and notified on 11th February, 1981 and amended thereafter, are applicable to the candidates for appointment against the aforesaid post on contractual basis. True, the appointment is contractual, but in the contractual appointment also it is expected that the recruitment authority should follow the rules that have been framed by the Government. The counter affidavit absolutely does not meet our query; on the other hand, the Joint Director has tried to justify the violation of the Rules. However, when the Rules framed by the State Government provide for giving preference to the fit candidates for the post of VAW/LVAW that is bound to be followed, be it regular or contractual. The authorities cannot go beyond the scope and ambit of the Rules with a plea that appointments are not regular but contractual because in the present days scenario, regular appointments have been exception; contractual appointments are the rule of the day. The rules framed by the Government, if not followed by its own authorities, will ultimately lead to conclusion, the advantage of which should be taken by the dishonest officials and unscrupulous candidates. In a case of similar nature (W.P.(C) No.7833/2007 disposed of on 8.7.2008) this Court while dealing with the provision of Section 3(d) of the O.R.V Act has observed that the provision of the O.R.V. Act is also applicable in respect of contractual employment in the Government or in the Governmental organizations, as the case may be. We are satisfied that the rules that have been framed by the Government, have not been followed and the advertisement has not been made in consonance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Page 4 of 34 // 5 // Rules framed by the Government, i.e., Recruitment and Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 and amended vide notification dated 24.06.1991, are applicable to the cases of recruitment of VAW/LVAW on contractual basis. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The advertisement in Annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid extent. The O.Ps are directed to issue a corrigendum to this effect and fix the last date of application afresh”. 2.1. It is contended that without following the direction of this Court so issued on 14.08.2008, when fresh advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture of respective districts inviting applications to fill-up the vacant post of VAW on contractual basis instead of issuing a corrigendum to the advertisement dtd. 05.12.2008, the matter was again challenged before this Court in various writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008 and batch. All those Writ Petitions were disposed of vide order dtd.03.02.2012. The order passed by this Court from Paragraphs-6 to 9 are quoted hereunder:- “6. By the aforesaid order this Court while quashing the advertisement directed to issue a corrigendum to the advertisement and refix the last date of application. As per Annexure-A/3 and B/3 the opposite party-State has taken decision that if the marks secured by a candidate of +2 Science Branch and mark secured by candidate in the field of agriculture is equal then candidates having +2 Vocational Course in the field of agriculture shall be preferred. This in our view, is not the spirit of the Rule. It is admitted at the Bar that the posts of VAW no to selection/recruitment test is contemplated or held. The only basis of selection is the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the +2 Vocational course in the field of Agriculture of +2 Science or Intermediate Science. Although all the above categories of candidates are eligible to apply as per Rule-4 of the Rules, the proviso to Rule-4, which is in the nature or an exception to the general provision, makes it clear that candidates who have passed +2 vocational course in agriculture shall be preferred to the other categories. This the selection for Page 5 of 34 // 6 // means that after candidates having qualification of +2 vocational in agriculture are appointed in order of their merit (marks) in such course the balance vacancies, if any, shall be filled up by candidates having +2 Science/Intermediate Science qualification. The nature of work of a VAW being related to agriculture, Rule-4 along with its proviso cannot be susceptible to any other interpretation. The advertisement (Annexure-2), particularly, Clause-4 thereof pertaining to ‘Method of Selection’ is therefore contrary to the Rules. 7. From the case of Sudhir Kumar Sahu till this case there is no improvement on the part of the State Authority to bring a rationality in the process of selection of VAW rather than bent upon to circumvent the rule which is prevailing and in vogue for which we have express our displeasure in the aforesaid judgment of Sudhir Kumar Sahu which is quoted in the aforesaid paragraph. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to say that the advertisement in Annexure-2 is contrary to the 1981 Rules as amended up-to-date and accordingly the same is quashed. 8. We are constrained to observe that the action of the Secretary, Agriculture is not only contrary to the rule but also contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. While we propose to impose heavy cost on the officers at fault, but on the submission of the learned State Counsel no cost is imposed on them. We hope that the officers shall be careful in future while dealing with the court matter. 9. So far as the age of the petitioners in respect of W.P.(C) Nos.18942 of 2008, 18594 of 2008, 18943 of 2008, 18492 of 2008 and 113 of 2009 is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to approach the authorities in this regard, who shall consider the same looking to the fact that advertisement to the post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen years. 2.2. It is contended that without following the order passed on 14.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008 as well as the order dtd.03.02.2012 so passed in W.P.(C) No.18942/2008 and batch, when a fresh advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on 04.10.2013 inviting applications to fill up the self-same post of VAW on contractual basis, all these writ petitions were filed challenging the advertisement as well as the order passed Page 6 of 34 // 7 // by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production in refusing to relax the upper age limit in respect of the candidates of Bolangir District, who had earlier approached this Court. 2.3. It is contended that the Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.09.12.2013 passed an interim order by restraining the Opposite Parties not to provide appointment to the selected candidates in terms of the advertisement issued on 04.10.2013 without leave of the Tribunal. The order dtd.09.12.2013 is quoted hereunder:- “The applicant, who has applied for his engagement as against VAW pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2008 have filed this O.A with a prayer to quash the advertisement dtd.4.10.2013 (Annexure-5), for a direction to implement the order of the Hon’ble High Court by way of issuing a corrigendum to the advertisement and also for allowing the applicants to participate in the select list. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. Mr. Rath, learned counsel submits that earlier the applicants had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008 challenging the advertisement issued for engagement of V.A.Ws/L.V.Ws and the Hon’ble Court disposed of the said O.A vide order dtd.14.8.2008 with the observation that- “the Rules framed by the Government, if not followed by its lead to conclusion, the own authorities, will ultimately advantage of which would be taken by the dishonest officials and unscrupulous candidates. In a case of similar nature (W.P.(C) No.7833/2007 disposed of on 8.7.2008) this Court while dealing with the provision of Section 3(d) of the O.R.V. Act has observed that the provision of the O.R.V Act is also applicable in the Government or in the Governmental organizations, as the case may be. in respect of contractual employment Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Advertisement in annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid extent. The O.Ps are Page 7 of 34 // 8 // directed to issue a corrigendum to this effect and fix the last date of application afresh”. Without complying with the said order of the Hon’ble High Court the respondent authorities again issued a fresh advertisement dated 18.5.2008 as at annexure-2. Challenging the said advertisement under annexure-2 the applicants once again approached Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008 and batch of cases so also W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2012. The first batch of cases were disposed of vide order dtd.03.2.2012 with the observations that-“ 8. We are constrained to observe that the action of the Secretary, Agriculture is not only contrary to the rule but also contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. While we propose to impose heavy cost on the officers at fault, but on the submission of the learned State Counsel no cost is imposed on them. We hope that the offcers shall be careful in future while dealing with the court matter. 9. So far as the age of the petitioners in respect of W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008, 18594 of 2008, 18943 of 2008, 18492 of 2008 and 113 of 2009 is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to approach the authorities in this regard, who shall consider the same looking to the fact that advertisement to the post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen years”. And the second set of Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.3868 /2012 was disposed of with order to the effect-“ it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners in this present writ application is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008, disposed of on 3.2.2012. The direction contained in the aforesaid order is also applicable to the petitioners in this writ application. Accordingly, the advertisement under annxure-2 is quashed”. to issue As such the respondent authorities were only directed by the Hon’ble court to issue corrigendum in respect of the earlier fresh they never directed judgment where advertisement fixing age limitation. Presently once again after disposal of the second lot of cases vide order under Annexure- 4 again fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent authority in daily Dharitri dtd.4.10.2013(Annexure-5) wherein the age limit has been fixed that the candidates should not be less than 21 years of age and more than 32 years. In the mean time the applicants who had earlier approached Hon’ble High Court and their writ petition was disposed of with a direction only to issue corrigendum to the earlier advertisement has not been issued. As on date the applicants are age barred. As such the respondent authority while instead of issuing a fresh advertisement ought to have issued only corrigendum and incase they should issue fresh advertisement they have been protected to earlier advertisement of the year 2008 and 2012 respectively. If in the fresh advertisement appropriate age limit would have been accordingly fixed then the applicant would have been eligible to apply for the post. Page 8 of 34 // 9 // Even though for respondents pursuant to advertisement all these applicants have applied their applications have been rejected by the respondent authorities on the grounds of upper age limit as has been prescribed in the advertisement. the post but for In that view of the matter, appropriate order may be passed by this Tribunal protecting the applicants keeping in view the earlier decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2012. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that unless he obtain instruction from the respondent authorities he is not in a position to say anything on the merits of the case. Order of the Hon’ble Court has not been complied instead of order passed in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2012. Be that as it may, issue notice on the question of admission specifically indicating therein that the matter is likely to be disposed of at the stage of admission. Counter be filed by the respondent authorities within a period of four weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Put up this matter five weeks after. However, so far as interim prayer is concerned since the advertisement has already been issued and many candidates must have applied to face selection test, the selection test be conducted, result be published but no appointment be made without leave of this Tribunal. However, after appearance and filing of the counter or otherwise the respondent authorities are at liberty to file appropriate application for modification/variation of the above order”. 2.4. However, the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.12.2013 was modified vide order dtd.25.11.2014 with the following effect:- “Heard Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. R.K. Dash, learned Government Advocate. This M.P. No.1394(C)/2014 (O.A. No.3990(C)/2013 has been filed by the State respondents with a prayer to vacate the interim order dtd.9.12.2013 and allow the respondent authority for appointment of VAWs in the interest of the State i.e., Bolangir Agric culture Range. Page 9 of 34 // 10 // Similarly M.P. NO.1393(C)/2013 (O.A No.3988(C)/2013 has been filed by the State respondents with a prayer to vacate the interim order dtd.9.12.2013 and allow the respondent authority for appointment of VAW in the interest of the State i.e. Keonjhar, Agriculture Range. issued Interim orders have been these O.As No.3990(C)/2013 and O.A No.3988(C)/2013 in which it is stated that selection test be conducted, result be published but no appointment be made without leave of this Tribunal, the same interim order has been issued in O.A No.3548(C)/2013 on 17.1.2014. in Learned Govt. Advocate submits that due to acute shortage of VAWs in Bolangir and Keonjhar Agriculture Range, the Government programmes can not be implemented successfully. Most of the farmers will unaware of the technical message to be delivered by the field functionaries. The State respondents submitted this Tribunal dtd.9.12.2013, no appointment orders have been issued. Hence, the interim order passed in the above O.As. may be vacated so that the State respondents may be able to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates. interim order of that due to Learned counsel for the applicants submits that appropriate orders may be issued protecting the interest of the applicants. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the interim order passed on 09.12.2013 and 17.1.2014 in O.A Nos.3990(c)/2013, O.A No.3998(C)/2013 and O.A. No.3548(c)/2013 are modified to the effect that leave is granted to State respondents to issue appointment orders in respect of selected candidates, but such appointments shall abide by the result of these O.As and this shall be reflected in all such appointment orders. In case applicants succeed in these O.As and are entitled to consequential appointments, junior most of candidates selected and given appointment shall have to make way for the applicants. these With (O.A.No.3009(C)/2013) and M.P. No.1393(c)/2014 No.3988(C)/2013) are accordingly disposed of”. M.Ps.No.1394(C)/2014 (O.A. orders, the 2.5. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the 2013 matters and Mr. B.K. Hati, learned counsel for the Petitioners in 2023 applications vehemently contended that since the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha without following the relevant recruitment rules issued the advisement on 18.05.2008 Page 10 of 34 // 11 // inviting application to fill up the post of VAW and lady VAW on contractual basis, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008. The lead case being W.P.(C) No.10285/2008, this Court after giving a detailed discussion of the submission was pleased to quash the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008 and with a further direction to issue a corrigendum and to fix the last date of application afresh. But without following the direction of this Court so passed in its order dtd.14.08.2008, when a fresh advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture of respective districts inviting similar application for the vacant post of VAW on 05.12.2008, the same was again challenged in different writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.18942/2008 and batch. 2.6. This Court vide order dtd.03.02.2012 while holding that the advertisement in question has been issued contrary to the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008, quashed the advertisement dtd.05.12.2008. While quashing the same, this Court permitted the Petitioners in some of the cases to move the authority for relaxation of upper age limit so that they can appear and face the recruitment with issuance of a corrigendum as directed by this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No.10285/2008. Page 11 of 34 // 12 // 2.7. It is contended that without following the direction so issued by this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008 by issuing a corrigendum to advertisement dtd. 18.05.2008, when a fresh advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range on 04.10.2013 inviting application for the post of VAW on contractual basis, the matter is under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions. 2.8. It is contended that since this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 while quashing the advertisement issued by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production directed the said authority to issue a corrigendum, the said order having not been challenged by the State- authority, they are bound to follow the same by issuing a corrigendum to the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008. But without following the said direction with issuance of the corrigendum when a fresh advertisement was issued not by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-5(5) of the Recruitment & Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 (in short Rules) and the advertisement in question was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, the same is under challenge in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Page 12 of 34 // 13 // 2.9. It is contended that since this Court in its order dtd.14.08.2008 clearly directed the Director of Agriculture to issue a corrigendum and it is the Director of Agriculture who is only competent to issue any advertisement for selection to the post of VAW as provided under Rule-5(5) of the Rules, the corrigendum should have been issued by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production. But without following the said direction when the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir issued a fresh advertisement on 05.12.2008, the same was again challenged in various writ petitions. This Court vide order dtd.03.02.2012 quashed the said advertisement by reiterating the order passed in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. But once again the impugned advertisement was issued on 04.10.2013 by the Dy. Director of Agriculture, who is not competent to issue such an advertisement. 2.10. It is contended that in view of the order passed by this Court on 03.02.2012 coupled with the order dtd.14.08.2008, the Director of Agriculture and Food Production should have issued the corrigendum to the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008. But once again without following the direction of this Court with issuance of a corrigendum, a fresh advertisement has been issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who is not competent to Page 13 of 34 // 14 // issue any such advertisement, in view of Rule-5(5) of the Rules. Since the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 was issued without following the order passed by this Court in two successive writ petitions and was also issued by an incompetent authority, the selection process undertaken in terms of the advertisement is vitiated. The matter when was challenged, the Tribunal, while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.09.12.2013 passed an interim order by restraining the Opposite Parties not to issue the appointment order without leave of the Tribunal. The said order though was modified vide order dtd.25.11.2014, but the Tribunal clearly held that in case the Petitioners succeed in the Original Application, junior most candidates selected and given appointment shall have to make way for the petitioners. 2.11. It is accordingly contended that since as provided under Rule-5(5) of the Rules, it is the Director who is only competent to issue the advertisement and the same having not been issued by the Director, the process of selection undertaken basing on the impugned advertisement so issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Bolangir Range on 04.10.2013 is vitiated. 2.12. It is contended that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in Page 14 of 34 // 15 // that manner only and in no other manner. Since in the present case, the impugned advertisement has been issued without following Rule-5(5) of the Rules, not only the said advertisement but also the selection process conducted thereof is illegal and liable for interference of this Court. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied on the following decisions:- 1. (1998) 8 SCC-266 (Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad & Others). 2. (2021) 6 SCC-707 (Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank & Others) 3. Civil Appeal No.4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019) (Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh) 2.13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-17 of the case in Chandra Kishore Jha has held as follows:- insofar as an election petition “17.In our opinion is concerned, proper presentation of an election petition in the Patna High Court can only be made in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-E. No other mode of presentation of an election petition is envisaged under the Act or the Rules thereunder and, therefore, an election petition could, under no circumstances, be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahrnad v. King Emperor, 63 Indian Appeals 372=AIR 1936 PC 253; Rao Shiv Bahadw Singh & Anr. V. State of Vindhya Pndwh, 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322. State of Utter Pradesh v. Singhan Singh & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358 = (1964) 1 SCWR 57] An election petition under the Rules could only have been presented in the open Court upto 16.5.1995 till 4.15 P.M. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done. Page 15 of 34 // 16 // However, we cannot ignore that the situation in the present case was not of the making of the appellant. Neither the designated election Judge before whom the election petition could be formally presented in the open Court nor the Bench hearing civil applications and motions was admittedly available on 16.5.1995 after 3.15 P.M., after the Obituary Reference since admittedly the Chief Justice of the High Court had declared that "the Court shall not sit for the rest of the day" after 3.15 P.M. Law does not expect a party to do the impossible - impossiblium nulla obligatioest as in the instant case, the election petition could not be filed on 16.5.1995 during the Court hours, as far all intent and purposes, the Court was closed on 16.5.1995 after 3.15 P.M”. 2.14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-14 of the case in Opto Circuit India Limited has held as follows:- to in a matter relating “14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder: “It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner”. Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. We have found fault with the Authorised Officer and declared the action bad only in so far as not following the legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party”. 2.15. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-14, 15, 16 & 17 of the case in Union of India & Ors has held as follows:- 14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different language is not followed by any consequence and, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable. The language Page 16 of 34 // 17 // chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir Ahmad v. King- Emperor9, wherein it was held that “that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” 15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors.10, held as under: in no other manner. “17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935- 36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5- 1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done................” 16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.11 wherein this Court held as under: