JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Petitioners had duly been appointed to different posts by the Notified Area Council at Jaleswar (opposite party No. 2) and some of the letters of appointments are Annexure-1 series. Their services were terminated vide Annexures-2 and 3 on the ground that they were surplus staff, the octroi tax having been withdrawn from the area. The Additional District Magistrate, Balasore, had given assurance to the Petitioners while he was in charge of the Notified area Council that their cases would be considered with sympathy after octroi tax was re-imposed and this would be evident from Annexure-4. Having learnt that octroi tax was being re-introduced with the approval of the State Government by the opposite party No. 2, the Petitioners sought appointments in pursuance of the previous assurances given to them. They have, however, been told as per Annexure-6 that they must have their cases sponsored through the Employment Exchange. This has been done in spite of the letter of the Additional District Magistrate (Annexure-7) to the opposite party No. 2 to consider the cases of the Petitioners for giving re-employment to them. The Petitioners have sought a direction of this Court to the opposite party No. 2 to consider the cases of re-employment of the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 424 of the Orissa Municipal Rules framed under the Orissa Municipal Act. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has contested the proceeding and the stand taken by it, is that, in order to get re-employment, it is necessary that the Petitioner must be considered to be eligible for re-employment after their cases are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 3. It is not necessary to go into the question of infringement of Section 26-H of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the specific rule. viz., Rule 424 of the Rules providing for employment of persons whose services have been terminated earlier by a municipality or notified area council. 3. It is not necessary to go into the question of infringement of Section 26-H of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the specific rule. viz., Rule 424 of the Rules providing for employment of persons whose services have been terminated earlier by a municipality or notified area council. Rule 424 of the Rules provides: When candidates are required for employment in any post in a unit preference shall be given to persons discharged or reverted from such posts in the unit under Rule 420 so long as such persons desirous of such appointments are available, appointments being made in the inverse of the order in which they were discharged or reverted from such unit: Provided that in the case of a person who did not on the date of his discharge or reversion hold the post substantively, he possesses the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post or has, before discharge or reversion been exempted by competent authority from the possession of such qualifications: Provided further that also if the appointing authority considers it undesirable that any specified person should be appointed under this rule such authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the person concerned, refuse to appoint him and an appeal shall lie from such refusal as if it were an order of dismissal. 4. It is not disputed that the services of the Petitioners had been terminated by the opposite party No. 2 owing to the abolition of octroi tax. It is not disputed either that now octroi tax has been re-imposed by the opposite party No. 2 with the approval of the State Government. The Petitioners are desirous of re-employment and they are available for appointments. Rule 424 does not provide for eligibility. Persons who have earlier been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and appointed and whose services have been terminated need not again have their cases sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Evidently that is not the intention expressed in Rule 424. On the other hand, as provided therein, the only power exercisable by the appointing authority is to consider as to whether re-employment of the persons whose services had earlier been terminated would be undesirable. If the authority so considers, it has to record its reasons and communicate the same to the person concerned. Such an order is also appealable as provided in the Rules. 5. If the authority so considers, it has to record its reasons and communicate the same to the person concerned. Such an order is also appealable as provided in the Rules. 5. The direction to the Petitioners as per Annexure-6 to seek re-employment after having their cases sponsored by the Employment Exchange cannot be sustained in law in view of the clear provision made in Rule 423. 6. The Petitioners are entitled to have a direction issued to the opposite party No. 2 to consider their cases for re-employment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 424 and we so direct. The writ application is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, we would make no order as to costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed