The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch CASE NO. APPELLANT(S) RESPONDENT(S) SL. NO. 1. WA No.2910/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 1.State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Bulu Panigrahi 5 Harekrushna Behera 6. Benudhar Naik 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. Bishikeshan Sahoo 4. Bidur Jal 5. Ranjit Karuan 6. Nabin Kumar Naik 7. Labanidhar Sahu 8. Bipin Kumar Dalai 9. Bhagirathi Sahu 10. Abhilash Sarangi 11. Arati Sahoo 12. Ashok Sahu 13. Basanta Kumar Majhi @ Basanta Majhi 14. Tapaswini Naik 15. Mamina Dehuri 16. Narendra Kumar Naik 17. Basantilata Naik 18. Mamata Nanda 19. Smitarani Panda 20. Tarun Deep 21. Pinku Ranjan Sahoo 22. Ranjita Kumari Sahoo 23. Jayaprava Sahoo 24. Madhumita Kisan W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 1 of 41 2. WA No.2888/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 1. State of Odisha, represented through 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. WA No.2906/2023 1. Rupak Kumar Dash 2. Jagannath Parida the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Netrananda Satpathy 5.Balakrushna Behera 1. Nilambar Parida 2. Benudhar Sha 3. Umesh Chandra Pradhan 3. Sandhyarani Sethy 4. Pradeep Kumar Nayak 4. Mana Mohan Sahu 5. Soudamini Biswal 5. State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department 6. Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Orissa 7. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Keonjhar Range 6. Sabitri Sahoo 7. Sipun Kumar Naik 8. Debaki Kishan 9. Arun Kumar Parida 10. Urbasi Behera 11. Rajashree Sahoo 12. Achyutananda Sethi 13. Anni Singh Dandapat 14. Subal Kumar Bag 15. Bhabani Shankar Jena 16. Binapani Dhaudia 4. WA No.2907/2023 1. Santanu Kumar Sarangi 1. Nilambar Parida 2. Brajakishor Munda 2. Benudhar Sha 3. Kedarnath Bhola 3. Sandhyrani Sethy 4. Sadananda Mallick 4. Mana Mohan Sahu 5. Babulal Soren 6. Debasish Behera 7. Jayanta Mohanty 8. Dharani Dhar Kishan 9. Kaberi Mohapatra 10. Sadhana Rout 5. State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary to Govt. Agriculture Department 6. Director of Agriculture & Food Production ,Orissa 7. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Keonjhar Range W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 2 of 41 11. Sobhana Priyadarshini Puhana, 12. Indrajit Puhana 13. Nirajanalini Nayak 14. Samapika Biswal 5. WA No.2911/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. Bishikeshan Sahoo 4. Bidur Jal 5. Ranjit Karuan 6. Nabin Kumar Naik 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food 7. Labanidhar Sahu Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Prafulla Kumai Purohit 8. Bipin Kumar Dalai 9. Bhagirathi Sahu 10. Abhilash Sarangi 11. Arati Sahoo 12. Ashok Sahu 13. Basanta Kumar Majhi @ Basanta Majhi 14. Tapaswini Naik 15. Mamina Dehuri 16. Narendra Kumar Naik 17. Basantilata Naik 18. Mamata Nanda 19. Smitarani Panda 20. Tarun Deep 21. Pinku Ranjan Sahoo 22. Ranjita Kumari Sahoo 23. Jayaprava Sahoo 24. Madhumita Kisan 6. WA No.2925/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 1. State of Odisha, represented through 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. Bishikeshan Sahoo 4. Bidur Jal 5. Ranjit Karuan 6. Nabin Kumar Naik the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 3 of 41 7. Labanidhar Sahu Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Sudhir Kumar Sahu 8. Bipin Kumar Dalai 9. Bhagirathi Sahu 10. Abhilash Sarangi 11. Arati Sahoo 12. Ashok Sahu 13. Basanta Kumar Majhi @ Basanta Majhi 14. Tapaswini Naik 15. Mamina Dehuri 16. Narendra Kumar Naik 17. Basantilata Naik 18. Mamata Nanda 19. Smitarani Panda 20. Tarun Deep 21. Pinku Ranjan Sahoo 22. Ranjita Kumari Sahoo 23. Jayaprava Sahoo 24. Madhumita Kisan 7. WA No.2940/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 1. State of Odisha, represented through 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. Bishi keshan Sahoo 4. Bidur Jal 5. Ranjit Karuan 6. Nabin Kumar Naik the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food 7. Labanidhar Sahu Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Sambhuprasad Biswal 8. Bipin Kumar Dalai 9. Bhagirathi Sahu 10. Abhilash Sarangi 11. Arati Sahoo 12. Ashok Sahu 13. Basanta Kumar Majhi @ Basanta Majhi 14. Tapaswini Naik 15. Mamina Dehuri 16. Narendra Kumar Naik W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 4 of 41 17. Basantilata Naik 18. Mamata Nanda 19. Smitarani Panda 20. Tarun Deep 21. Pinku Ranjan Sahoo 22. Ranjita Kumari Sahoo 23. Jayaprava Sahoo 24. Madhumita Kisan 8. WA No.2941/2023 1. Jaydev Khadia 1. State of Odisha, represented through 2. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 3. Bishikeshan Sahoo 4. Bidur Jal 5. Ranjit Karuan 6. Nabin Kumar Naik the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food 7. Labanidhar Sahu Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Kodanda Bhusan Selma 8. Bipin Kumar Dalai 9. Bhagirathi Sahu 10. Abhilash Sarangi 11. AratiSahoo 12. Ashok Sahu 13. Basanta Kumar Majhi @ Basanta Majhi 14. Tapaswini Naik 15. Mamina Dehuri 16. Narendra Kumar Naik 17. Basantilata Naik 18. Mamata Nanda 19. Smitarani Panda 20. Tarun Deep 21. Pinku Ranjan Sahoo 22. Ranjita Kumari Sahoo 23. Jayaprava Sahoo 24. Madhumita Kisan 9. WA No.2974/2023 1. Jayanti Mahanand 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 5 of 41 Farmers' Empowerment 2. The Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 4. Netrananda Satpathy 5. Balakrushna Behera 6. Jaydev Khadia 7. Sujit Kumar Pradhan 1. Netrananda Satapathy 2. Balakrushna Behera 10. WA No.2992/2023 1.State of Orissa, its Secretary represented to Agriculture through Government, Department 2. Director of Agriculture and Food Productions, Orissa 3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir Range, Bolangir 11. WA No.3022/2023 1.State of Orissa, its through Government, Department Secretary represented to Agriculture 1. Nilambar Parida 2.Benudhar Sha 3. Sandhya Rani Sethy 4. Mana Mohan Sahu 2. Director of Agriculture and Food Productions Orissa 3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Keonjhar Range, Keonjhar
Legal Reasoning
Advocates appeared in these cases: For Appellants: assisted by Mr. J.R. Deo, Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2910, 2888, 2911, 2925, 2940, Mr. Gautam Mishra, Senior Advocate, 2941 of 2023) Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2906 and 2907 of 2023) Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.P. Nath, Advocate W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 6 of 41 (In W.A. No.2974 of 2023) Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2992 and 3022 of 2023) For Respondents: Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2910, 2888, 2906, 2907, 2911, 2925, 2940, 2941 and 2974 of 2023) Mr. Jayant Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2910 and 2888 of 2023) Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, Advocate (In W.A. Nos.2925, 2940 and 2941of 2023) (In W.A. No.3022 of 2023) Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 24.09.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. In the present batch of intra-court appeals, a common judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.10.2023 in WPC (OAC) No.3792 of 2013 (Prafulla Kumar Purohit v. State of Odisha and others ) and batch and the order passed in WP W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 7 of 41 (C) No. OAC No. 3988 of 2013 on 13.10.2013 in terms of the common judgment in WP(C) No. (OAC) No. 3792 of 2013 and batch. 2. By the impugned judgments, the learned Single Judge has held both the advertisements, each issued by the respective Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir and Keonjhar, for engagement as Village Agricultural Worker (In short, ‘VAW’) on contractual basis, for the revenue Districts of Bolangir and Keonjhar, to be illegal. 3. After having noticed the alleged material irregularities in the said advertisements and having quashed them, learned Single Judge has held the entire process of selection and engagements to the said
Decision
posts as illegal, and accordingly allowed the writ petitions with certain directions. Following is the operative portion of the impugned judgment: “10.4. Since the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in respect of respective districts including the District of Bolangir, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules, placing reliance on the decision in the case of (1998) 8 SCC-266 (Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad & Others, (2021) 6 SCC-707 (Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank & Others) & Civil Appeal No.4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019) (Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh) as per the considered view of this Court Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir is not competent to issue W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 8 of 41 in irregularity such advertisement. Since as provided under Rule-5(5), the Director of Agriculture and Food Production is required to issue the advertisement and in the instant writ petitions the impugned advertisement has been issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Bolangir Range on 04.10.2013, this Court placing reliance on Rule- 5(5) of the Rules is of the view that the impugned advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 has been issued by an incompetent authority and that too without issuance of a corrigendum by the Director of Agriculture to the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008. 10.5. Therefore, this Court in view of such material the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013, is inclined to quash the same. In view of such quashing of the advertisement any selection process undertaken in terms of the said advertisement is also quashed. Since because of the admitted latches on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in not issuing a corrigendum on the face of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2008 and 03.02.2012, the Petitioners in all these cases could not get a chance to participate in the selection process and in the process lost their livelihood, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Harapriya Nanda as cited (supra), this court directs Opposite Party No.1 to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each to each of the Petitioners. The compensation as directed be paid within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order.” 4. Following are the writ appeals which arise out of the advertisement concerning the District of Bolangir:- W.A. No.2910 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and others v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WPC (OAC) No.3989 of 2013) W.A. No.2888 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and another v. State of Odisha and others) W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 9 of 41 (arising out of WPC (OAC) No.3990 of 2013) W.A. No.2974 of 2023 (Jayanti Mahanand v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WPC (OAC) No.3990 of 2013) W.A. No.2911 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and others v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WPC (OAC) No.3792 of 2013) W.A. No.2925 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and others v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WP(C) No.17908 of 2023) W.A. No.2940 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and others v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WP(C) No.18283 of 2023) W.A. No.2941 of 2023 (Jaydev Khadia and others v. State of Odisha and others) (arising out of WP(C) No.18285 of 2023) W.A. No.2992 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Netrananda Satapathy and another) (arising out of WPC (OAC) No.3990 of 2013) 4.1 The following writ appeals relate to the advertisement for the District of Keonjhar: W.A. No.2906 of 2023 (Rupak Kumar Dash and others v. Nilambar Parida and others) (arising out of WPC(OAC) No.3988 of 2013) W.A. No.2907 of 2023 (Santanu Kumar Sarangi and others v. Nilambar Parida and others) (arising out of WPC(OAC) No.3988 of 2013) W.A. No.3022 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Nilambar Parida and others) (arising out of WPC(OAC) No.3988 of 2013) 5. The aforesaid writ appeals, except W.A. No.2992 of 2023 and W.A. No.3022 of 2023, have been filed on behalf of such persons, W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 10 of 41 who after having been declared successful based in the process of selection, have been finally engaged. W.A. No.2992 of 2023 and W.A. No.3022 of 2023 have been filed on behalf of the State of Odisha challenging the same impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. All the appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties, as they arise out of the same common judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Before referring to the foundational facts necessary for adjudication of the present batch of writ appeals, we consider it apt to refer to the relevant provisions under which the selection process in question was undertaken. 8.1 The Agriculture and Cooperation Department had issued a notification dated 11.02.1981 laying down the procedure for recruitment and training of Village Agricultural Workers (VAW) called “Recruitment and Training of Village Agricultural Worker Rules, 1981 (“1981 Rules, in short”)”, Rule-5 of which prescribes the method of recruitment. Sub-Rule-5 of the said Rule-5 is crucial for the present adjudication, which reads thus: W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 11 of 41 5. Method of Recruitment: xxx xxx xxx (5) The Director of Agriculture & Food Production shall advertise in leading Oriya dailies and call for application in the prescribed form as per schedule-I indicating the tentative number of trainees to be selected from each Revenue District, preferably in the month of May of the year. (Underscored for emphasis) 8.2. It is not in dispute and is evident from Rule 24(b) of the 1981 Rules that a Deputy Director of Agriculture of the concerned range is the appointing authority of a VAW. Rule 24(b) of the 1981 Rules is extracted below: 24. Appointment of V.A.W.: xxx xxx xxx (b) The concerned Deputy Director of Agriculture (Range) shall be the appointing authority of V.A.Ws. ordinarily, the appointing authority shall offer appointment to successful trainees on the basis of the results of the examination at the concerned Kendra which shall be the basis of inter-se-seniority for the V.A.Ws. appointed in the same year. 8.3 For the present, we are not entering into the issue as to whether the said 1981 Rules are statutory in character or not. 9. The facts which are not in dispute and which have been duly noticed in the impugned judgment, are that the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, State of Odisha had earlier issued an W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 12 of 41 advertisement on 18.05.2008 for filling up the posts of VAW on contractual basis in various Districts of the State. The said advertisement, to the extent it related to the Districts of Bolangir and Keonjhar, became the subject matter of challenge before this Court, with the filing of W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. The challenge to the advertisement was mainly on the ground that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008 had completed vocational training in the year 2001, but because of a ban on recruitment of VAWs in the State Government, there was no avenue for his employment in the Government Service. As the advertisement issued in 2008 did not provide for any preference to the candidates having professional training in agricultural trade, the said writ petition was filed seeking redressal of his grievance by this Court. 10. The said writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008 came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 14.08.2008 (Sudhir Kumar Sahu v. State, 2008 (II) OLR-569) holding that the 1981 Rules framed by the State Government had not been followed. Accordingly, the said advertisement was quashed with a direction to the opposite parties to issue a corrigendum keeping in view the provisions under the Rules. Relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 13 of 41 to to be “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 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 it regular or followed, be 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 day’s scenario, regular exception; appointments 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 confusion, the advantage of which would be 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 respect of contractual also applicable employment the in Governmental organisations, 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 Rules framed by the Government, the Government or taken by become have in in W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 14 of 41 i.e., Recruitment and Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 and amended vide notification dated 24.6.1991, 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.” (Underscored for emphasis) 11. Instead of issuing a corrigendum as directed by this Court in case of Sudhir Kumar Sahoo (supra), the Deputy Directors of Agriculture of the respective Districts came out with fresh advertisement inviting applications to fill up the vacant posts of VAWs on contractual basis. 12. The advertisements in respect of Districts of Bolangir and Keonjhar were issued on 05.12.2008. The said advertisements dated 05.12.2008 were challenged before this Court by filing writ petitions, giving rise to W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18943 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18492 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.113 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 03.02.2012, disposed of the writ petitions in the following terms: 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 W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 15 of 41 to of the VAW posts that after the opposite party-State has taken decision that if the marks secured by a candidate of +2 Science Branch and mark secured by candidates in the field of agriculture is equal then candidates having +2 Vocational Course in the field of agriculture shall be preferred. This is our view, is not the spirit of the Rule. It is admitted at the Bar that for the selection no selection/recruitment test is contemplated or held. The only basis of selection is the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in +2 vocational course in the field of Agriculture or +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 other categories. This means 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 +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 expressed 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 candidates having up by W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 16 of 41 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 that looking advertisement to the post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen years.” the same fact the to 13. It is noteworthy that the challenge to the advertisements was not on the ground that they were issued by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, who lacked competence to issue advertisement under the Rules. 14. Thereafter, the advertisements were issued for the third time on 04.10.2013 in respect of the District of Bolangir, and on 05.10.2013 in respect of the District of Keonjhar, inviting applications to fill up the selfsame posts of VAWs. The said advertisements again came to be challenged, now before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) in O.As. No.3792(C), 3989(C), and 3990(C) of 2013. An interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 09.12.2013 to the effect that though the W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 17 of 41 said selection test could be conducted and result could be published, no appointment would be made without the leave of the Tribunal. Later, by an order dated 25.11.2014, the Tribunal modified the said interim order, by granting leave to the State-opposite parties to issue appointment orders in respect of the selected candidates based on the result published pursuant to the advertisement, which was to abide by the result of the original applications and that should be reflected in all the appointment orders. The Tribunal specifically observed that in case the applicants before the Tribunal succeeded in the original applications and found entitled to consequential appointment, junior most of the candidates selected and given appointment shall have to make way for the applicants. 15. In the background of the nature of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we consider it proper to quote the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal dated 25.11.2014. “In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the interim orders passed on 09.12.2013 and 17.01.2014 in OA Nos.3990 (c)/2013 and OA (c)/2013, OA No.3988 No.3548(c)/2013 are modified to the effect that leave is granted to the State respondents to issue selected in appointment orders 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 respect of W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 18 of 41 in these O.As. and are entitled to succeed consequential appointments, junior most of candidates selected and given appointment shall have to make way for the applicants.” (Underscored for emphasis) 16. The modified interim order dated 25.11.2014 was challenged before this Court by some of the applicants before the Tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.23584 of 2014 filed against the modified interim order of the Tribunal, making it clear that the parties would be governed by the interim order granted by the Tribunal. 17. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the original applications stood transferred to this Court and came to be registered as writ petitions. 18. It is pertinent to notice that there were altogether three original applications that were filed before the Tribunal i.e., OAC Nos.3792 (C) of 2013, 3989 (C) of 2013 and 3990 (C) of 2013 in respect of Bolangir. OAC No.3988 (C) of 2013 filed before the Tribunal related to the District of Keonjhar. Long after transfer of the said original applications to this Court, W.P.(C) Nos.17908, 18283 and 18285 of 2023 were filed in this Court, challenging the advertisement and the process of selection on various grounds in the District of Bolangir. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 19 of 41 19. This is the background in which all the writ applications were heard together by the learned Single Judge and came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment s and order. 20. It is also pertinent to note at this stage, which fact is not in dispute, that in terms of this Court’s order dated 03.02.2012 (supra) in W.P.(C) No. 18942 of 2008 and batch, the petitioners of the said cases had approached the authorities for relaxation of their age which was required to be considered by the authorities under the said order. Their applications were rejected. Rejection of their applications for grant of relaxation of age was also not the subject matter of challenge in the original applications which came to be transferred to this Court, which aspect has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 21. Learned Single Judge, after having noticed the facts and circumstances as noted above and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties reached a conclusion that in terms of Rule 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules, only the Director of Agriculture of Food Production had the competence to issue advertisement and call for application in the prescribed form. The learned Single Judge held that in such circumstance, the advertisement, at any cost could not have been issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture of respective Districts including W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 20 of 41 the District of Bolangir. The opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in paragraph 10.2 is relevant and is being quoted herein below: “10.2. Since as provided under Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules, it is the Director of Agriculture of Food Production, who is competent to issue advertisement in leading oriya dailies and call for application form as per the prescribed Schedule-I, to be selected from each Revenue District, the advertisement at any cost could not have been issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture of respective Districts including the district of Bolangir.” in 22. Learned Single Judge thereafter opined that in terms of this Court’s order passed on 14.08.2008, no corrigendum was issued by the Director of Agriculture. The learned Single Judge rejected the stand taken by the opposite parties that the stipulations which were required to be incorporated in the corrigendum in terms of this Court’s order dated 14.08.2008 were in fact incorporated in the subsequent advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on 04.10.2013. Learned Single Judge has recorded that while quashing the first advertisement of the Director of Agriculture, this Court had directed to issue a corrigendum. In such circumstance, the State- opposite parties were under obligation to comply with the said order by issuing a corrigendum. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 21 of 41 concluded that issuance of the fresh advertisement dated 04.10.2013 was in breach of this Court’s order, and therefore, deserved to be set aside. 23. Apparently, the learned Single Judge has held that the issuance of advertisement dated 04.10.2013 in respect of the District of Bolangir [WPC (OAC) No.3792 of 2013 and batch], to be illegal on the following two grounds: (i) the said advertisement was issued under the signature of the Deputy Director of Agriculture instead of the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Government of Odisha in breach of Rule 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules, and (ii) the State-opposite parties were required to issue a corrigendum in terms of this Court’s order dated 14.08.2008 (supra) and not a fresh advertisement. 24. After having declared the advertisement dated 04.10.2013 suffering from material irregularities to the aforementioned extent, learned Single Judge opined that the entire selection process undertaken in terms of the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir, could not be sustained and accordingly quashed the entire selection process. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 22 of 41 25. After having quashed the selection process, learned Single Judge concluded that it was because of the admitted laches on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing a corrigendum despite this Court’s order dated 14.08.2008, which resulted in the petitioners of the said cases not getting a chance to participate in the selection process and thus losing their livelihood, learned Single Judge awarded compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- payable to each of the petitioners. 26. Learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 3988 of 2013 (relating to the District of Keonjhar) by an order passed on the same date i.e. 13.10.2023, in the light of the decision in W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 3792 of 2013 and batch, which related to the advertisement for the District of Bolangir. However, in respect of the writ petitioners who had questioned the advertisement for Keonjhar District, the learned Single Judge, did not extend the benefit of compensation on the ground that they had participated in the selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement and they were not declared successful. 27. The aforesaid two orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the transferred original applications and W.P.(C) Nos.17908, 18283 and 18285 of 2023 are under challenge in the present intra-court appeals. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 23 of 41 28. Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A. No.2910 of 2023, W.A. No.2888 of 2023, W.A. No.2911 of 2023, W.A. No.2925 of 2023, W.A. No.2940 of 2023 and W.A. No.2941 of 2023 has submitted that both the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for quashing the advertisement are not sustainable in the eye of law. He has referred to a communication vide No. 2M (15) 20/2013/ 940 dated 13.09.2013 issued by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha to contend that the Deputy Directors of the Districts of Bolangir and Keonjhar were requested to publish the advertisement for recruitment of VAWa on contractual basis, as per the 1981 Rules. The said communication contained, inter alia the recruitment schedule also. The advertisements were thus issued under the direction of the Director of Agriculture and Food Production who is the competent authority under Rule 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules and the Deputy Directors were simply asked to get the advertisement published. Merely on the basis that the advertisements were published under the signature of the Deputy Director, though under clear orders of the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, it cannot be said 8that there was breach of Rule 5 (5) of the Rules. He has further submitted that in any event, publication of the advertisements under the signature of Deputy W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 24 of 41 Directors of Agriculture and Food Production can be treated to be in exercise of a power which was delegated by the competent authority i.e. Director of Agriculture and Food Production. He has relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in the case of Sidhartha Sarawgi vrs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kilkata and Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 248 (Paragraphs 4 to 7 and Paragraphs 16 to 19), in the case of Union of India and Another vrs. P.K. Roy and Others reported in AIR 1968 SC 850/ 1967 SCC ONLINE SC 23 ( Paragraphs 10 and 11). Reliance has also been placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Baskaran reported in (2020) 14 SCC 345 on this point. 28.1 He has further submitted that the requirement of publication of a corrigendum as was directed by this Court stood substantially complied with, with the issuance of the fresh advertisement since the stipulation which was required to be incorporated in the corrigendum in terms of this Court’s order was, as a matter of fact, incorporated in the fresh advertisement issued on 04.10.2013. He has further argued that the purity of process of selection is not under challenge. The appellants were selected and later appointed after following due and fair selection procedure and have been working against their posts W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 25 of 41 since 2014. He submits that since there is no allegation of any irregularity in the process of selection, solely on the ground that the advertisement was issued under the signature of the Deputy Directors, their selection and appointments could not have been unsettled by the learned Single Judge. He has further submitted that in W.P.(C) No.18942 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18594 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18943 of 2008, W.P.(C) No.18492 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.113 of 2009 relating to Balangir District , the question of age relaxation was directed to be considered by the authorities on the representation of some of the aggrieved candidates. The representations for relaxation of age were rejected by the authority and the said rejection has not been challenged. He has submitted that in the said background, the learned Single Judge ought not to have held the advertisement to be illegal on the ground that some of the candidates failed to get a chance to participate in the process of selection as they had become over aged in the meanwhile. 28.2 In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Neelima Srivastava vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 17 SCC 693. Paragraph 35 of the judgment which is relevant, reads thus: W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 26 of 41 “35. Thus, it is very well settled that it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.” 29. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A. No. 2974 of 2023 while adopting the submissions advanced by Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A. No. 2910 of 2023 and batch, has referred specifically to the rejection order dated 25th October, 2013 passed by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production rejecting the claim of relaxation in age. He has submitted that the said aspect of age relaxation could not be reopened at a subsequent stage. He has submitted that the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director cannot be said to be completely incompetent, he being the appointing authority under Rule 24 (b) of the 1981 Rules. He has argued that in the facts and circumstances, the Director of Agriculture had rightly requested the appointing authority to issue the advertisement and the advertisement was issued under the orders of the Director by the Deputy Director, the appointing authority. According to him, the impugned advertisement does not suffer from any irregularity which can have the consequence of setting aside the entire selection process and appointment made on the said basis. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 27 of 41 30. Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the appellants-State of Odisha in W.A. No. 2992 of 2023 (relating to the District of Bolangir) and W.A. No. 3022 of 2023 (relating to the District of Keonjhar) and for the Respondent State in the other writ appeals , has submitted that the issue of the competence of the Deputy Director to issue the advertisements in question were not specifically raised in the pleadings in the cases filed before the Tribunal which were subsequently transferred to this Court , or in the writ applications which were filed in this Court . Apparently thus , the applicants / writ petitioners were not aggrieved by the action of issuance of advertisement under the signatures of the Deputy Directors of Agriculture. He has further argued that complying with this Court’s direction, cases of the persons who had become overage were considered and a conscious decision was taken to reject their representation for relaxation of age. The learned Single Judge, he contends, has not found any illegality in rejection of the representation for relaxation of age in the impugned judgment. He has also argued, referring to Rule 7 of the 1981 Rules, that the said provision requires the applications to be addressed to the Deputy Director apparently because the Deputy Director is the appointing authority. In such circumstance, the learned Single Judge ought not to have taken a W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 28 of 41 hypertechnical view that the advertisements were illegal because they were published under the signature of the Deputy Directors, in the absence of any challenge to the fairness of the process of selection. He has accordingly submitted that in the aforesaid background, the writ petitioners were not entitled to any compensation on the ground that they missed a chance to participate in the process of selection. For these reasons, he contends, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference. 31. Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A. No. 2906 of 2023 and W.A. No. 2907 of 2023 which relate to the District of Keonjhar has adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Mishra and Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsels and has additionally argued that once the appellants for Keonjhar District had participated in the process of selection, it was impermissible for them to have questioned the advertisement itself. He contends that a plea was taken as regards maintainability of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground such writ petitioners who had participated in process of selection could not question the validity of advertisement itself, which aspect has not been addressed in the impugned judgment. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 29 of 41 32. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting private respondents in W.A. No. 2910 of 2023 and W.A. No. 2888 of 2023, which relate to Bolangir District has submitted that in terms of the educational qualification as prescribed under Rule 7 (4) of the 1981 Rules, the candidates having qualification of +2 vocational course were required to be given preference for selection to the post of VAW. The said qualification was not incorporated in the first advertisement. Noticing the said aspect, this Court had quashed the advertisement with a direction to issue corrigendum so as to incorporate the said part of the educational qualification stipulated under Rule 7 (4) of the 1981 Rules in the corrigendum with a definite purpose to ensure that those who were otherwise eligible in terms of the first advertisement could also participate in the process of selection based on the corrigendum to be issued in terms of this Court’s order. He submits that the respondents, who were the applicants pursuant to the first advertisement, lost their right to participate pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2013 because there was a fresh advertisement, independent of the first advertisement. He has submitted that since they had applied pursuant to the first advertisement, their cases ought to have been considered W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 30 of 41 for selection even if a fresh advertisement was issued later. So there is no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. 33. Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting private respondent in W.A. No. 3022 of 2023 which relate to the District of Keonjhar, has submitted that the first advertisement specifically required that the candidates must be registered with the concerned employment exchange. The said requirement was completely done away with in the advertisement dated 04.10.2013. For the said reason also the advertisement dated 04.10.2013 is unsustainable and has rightly been held to be illegal by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. She has adopted the submission advanced by Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel and has submitted that a corrigendum to an advertisement is an extension to the original advertisement. Issuance of fresh advertisement has frustrated the cause of such candidates who were otherwise eligible but became ineligible in terms of age because of issuance of fresh advertisement. 34. Based on the submissions which have been advanced on behalf of the parties, two questions of seminal importance emerge to test the sustainability of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The questions are :- W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 31 of 41 (1) Whether the advertisements issued under the signature of the Deputy Director of Agriculture for the districts of Bolangir and Keonjhar can be said to be incompetent and illegal on the ground that the same were issued in breach of Rule 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules which stipulates that such advertisement should be published by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production ? This question has to be dealt with in the background of the admitted fact that the Director of Agriculture had requested the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir and Keonjhar to publish the said advertisements, fixing a recruitment schedule, through the communication dated 13.09.2013. It is the case of the appellants that the said advertisement was merely published under the signatures of the Deputy Directors as requested by the Director of Agriculture and therefore the Deputy Directors acted as delegates of the power vested in the office of the Director under Rule 5 (5) of the Rules . (2) Whether the advertisements can be termed as illegal on the reasoning that despite the direction issued by this Court for issuance of a corrigendum, a fresh W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 32 of 41 advertisement was issued, thus denying, an opportunity to those who had applied in the first advertisement and became overage in the meanwhile ? 35. Adverting to the question No.1 as set out above, there is no dispute about the fact that no plea was taken by such writ petitioners, who were applicants before the OAT that the advertisements were illegal because they were issued by officers who were not competent to issue them. We need to keep in mind that the advertisements were challenged before OAT in 2013. In the Original Applications filed before the Tribunal, no such ground was taken. The Original Applications were transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal in the year 2019. There is absolutely nothing on record to demonstrate that any such stand was taken on behalf of the petitioners in the transferred writ applications or the writ applications filed in this Court, questioning the legality of the advertisements on the ground that they were issued by persons not competent to issue them in terms of Rule 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules. The writ petitioners, in their wisdom, did not challenge the validity of the advertisements on the ground the same were issued by an incompetent authority. A possibility that they had known about publication of the advertisements at the request of W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 33 of 41 Director, Agriculture, and therefore, did not take such ground to challenge the advertisements, cannot be ruled out. 36. It has been argued by Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents / writ petitioners that though the said plea was not taken in the pleadings, the same being a question of law was rightly raised during the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge and that has rightly been considered by the learned Single Judge. 37. In our considered view, it has been rightly argued on behalf of the appellants that the Deputy Directors of Agriculture, Bolangir and Keonjhar had got the advertisements published at the request of the Director, who is the competent authority to issue them, and thus, they acted as the delegates of the Director, Agriculture. 38. Reliance has rightly been placed on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Sidhartha Sarawgi v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 248, paragraph-7 of which reads as thus. or exigencies necessities of “7.Practical administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. Thus, the maxim delegatus non potestdelegare, gives way in the performance of administrative or ministerial tasks by subordinate W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 34 of 41 authorities in furtherance of the exercise of the delegated power by an authority.” 38.1. In case of Sidhartha Sarawgi (supra), the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with certain distinction between the delegation of legislative power and delegation of non-legislative / administrative power. The Court held that a legislature cannot delegate essential legislative function which consists of the determination of the legislative policy and formally enacting the policy in binding rule of conduct. As regards delegation of non-legislative / administrative powers, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-5 as under: “Regarding delegation of non-legislative / administrative powers on a person or a body to do certain things, whether the delegate himself is to perform such functions or whether after taking decision as per the terms of the delegation, the said agency can authorize the implementation of the same on somebody else, is the question to be considered. Once the power is conferred, after exercising the said power, how to implement the decision taken in the process, is a matter of procedure. The Legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy, confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of that policy. So long as the essential functions of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate. It is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well. In furtherance of the implementation of the decision already taken W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 35 of 41 by the primary delegate as per the delegation, ministerial or clerical tasks may be performed by authorized officers. The complexity of modern day administration and the expansion of functions of the State to the economic and social spheres have made it necessary that the Legislature gives wide powers to various authorities when the situation requires it. Today’s governmental functions are a lot more complex and the need for delegation of powers has become more compelling. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself.” 38.2. In the case of Sidhartha Sarawgi (supra), the issue related to determination of lease granted by Kolkata Board Trust to the petitioners of that case. In the said case an ejectment notice was issued by the Land Manager on the ground that it was illegal and without jurisdiction, he being not competent to issue such ejectment notice. The Supreme Court after having examined the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 held in paragraph-17 that since the Chairman had duly authorized the Land Manager, it could not be said that the ejectment notice issued by the Land Manager was without jurisdiction. 38.3. In the case of K. Baskaran (supra), the Supreme Court has enunciated the law, after noticing precedents as under: “14. The following principles can thus be culled out from the decisions of this Court: (i) A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 36 of 41 if report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; (ii) If a statutory to undertake authority empowers a delegate preparatory work, and to take an initial Civil Appeal No.2586 of 2020 @ SLP (C)No.15790 of 2019 etc. The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Baskaran decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authority’s own; (iii) Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as the essential function of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate and it is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well; and (iv) Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires.” 39. We are therefore of the view in the present cases, that publication of advertisements under sub section 5 (5) of the 1981 Rules is purely administrative in nature and we do not find any illegality in publication of the advertisements under the signatures of the Deputy Directors, Agriculture, the appointing authority, on the request made by the Director, Agriculture. Publication of advertisement under Rule 5 (5) of the 1981, which is one of the functions of the Director, Agriculture for initiation of selection process. We also do not find any such legal infirmity in publication of the advertisements under the W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 37 of 41 signatures of the respective Deputy Directors in the background of the facts noted above, as it would have the consequence of nullifying the entire selection process. This is more so because the Deputy Director is admittedly the appointing authority for the post of VAW under the rules. In such circumstances, the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment for interfering with the process of selection cannot be sustained. 40. The second question is whether it was obligatory for the competent authority to issue a corrigendum to the first advertisement and the fresh (third) advertisement deserved to be interfered with , on that score alone, in the background of the fact that the second advertisement, which was also a fresh advertisement, instead of corrigendum was not interfered, with by a coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the authorities ought to have issued a corrigendum instead of a fresh advertisement? The second advertisement was interfered with on the ground that the qualification which was required to be stipulated in the first advertisement was not mentioned in the second advertisement. So the subsequent plea of the applicants/petitioners that issuance of fresh advertisement in place of issuance of corrigendum defeated their right to be considered because they became overage in the meanwhile could not have been sustained W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 38 of 41 by the learned Single Judge, more so when the rejection of their representation(s) by the authority has not been challenged. 41. It is worthwhile to mention at this juncture that the selection processes were conducted in the year 2013 based on which the appellants in all the writ appeals (except the two writ appeals filed by the State), have been appointed and presently working on regular basis in the Department of Agriculture since 2014. There is no allegation of any irregularity, bias or mala fide in the process of their selection. 42. In relation to such applicants / petitioners who claim to have become overaged because of subsequent advertisement, this Court by order dated 03.02.2012 had permitted them to make representations for relaxation of age. Their representation for relaxation in age has been rejected by the competent authority on 25.10.2013. It is not in dispute that the persons who had become overaged had sought for relaxation in age criteria mainly on the ground that the selection process for the posts in question had not been undertaken for several years. The respondents/writ petitioners have not been able to make out a case that they had any right of age relaxation in accordance with any statutory rule or under any other provision having force of law. The issue of age relaxation has apparently not been accepted by the learned Single Judge as there is no finding on the said point. The writ petitioners have W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 39 of 41 not questioned the decision of the learned Single Judge in not addressing the issue of relaxation of age. 43. It is also the case of the private respondents / writ petitioners that some of them were qualified in terms of age when the first advertisement was issued and they stood disqualified when the last advertisements were issued, based on which the selection process was undertaken and the appellants in W.As. No.2910, 2888, 2974, 2911, 2925, 2940 and 2941 of 2023 were appointed in relation to Bolangir District. 44. As regards the writ petitioners / private respondents in the present appeals relating to the District of Keonjhar, they had participated in the process of selection and they have been found to be less meritorious and hence were not selected. 45. In such view of the matter, we are constrained to interfere with the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.10.2023 passed in WPC (OAC) Nos.3792(C), 3989(C), 3990(C) of 2013, W.P.(C) Nos.17908, 18283 and 18285 of 2023 and the order passed in WP(C) ( OAC) No. 3988 of 2013, by setting aside the same. W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 40 of 41 46. The Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost. 47. It will be open for the writ petitioners / contesting private respondents to approach the authorities to consider their cases for engagement against the post of VAWs if posts are vacant, keeping in mind the fact that they had pursued their legal remedies before the Tribunals/Courts for more than a decade and have in the meanwhile become overaged although they possess the necessary qualification. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge S.K. Guin/PA B. Sahoo/Secy P. Mohapatra/PA S.K. Behera/Senior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Dec-2024 09:30:59 W.A. No.2910 of 2023 and batch Page 41 of 41