JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - Dr. Tophan Pati, the writ petitioner in the present case challenges the order dated 2.1.1998 of the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application as to validity of the selection made by the Orissa Public Service Commission, opposite party No. 3 herein, for filling up vacancies in the posts of Junior Teachers, Psychiatry in the Medical Colleges of the State. 2. It is stated in greater details in the writ petition that for appointment of teaching staff in different Medical Colleges of the State, the Orissa Public Service Commission, opposite party No. 3, resorted to absolute illegalities and travelled beyond the Medical Teachers Recruitment Rules, 1979 by taking into consideration marks of the candidates obtained in studies unconnected with Medical studies and putting them at par with marks obtained in Medical studies. 3. It is placed on record that the petitioner having passed M.B.B.S. in 1979 from S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack completed M.D. in Psychiatry in 1984 was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon on 3.9.1984 being duly selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission in accordance with the Orissa Medical Service Recruitment Rules, 1979. He was attached to the Mental Health Institute in S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack from 28.10.1985. While continuing in S.C.B. Medical College at Cuttack, by order dated 9.8.1994 of the Government of Orissa, Health and Family Welfare Department as per Annexure-2 to the writ application, he was appointed as a Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in the discipline of Psychiatry and was posted to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital at Berhampur on ad hoc basis. This ad hoc appointment was preceded by an advertisement in the newspaper and selection by a Selection Committee and the petitioner was appointed in the discipline of Psychiatry with many others in different disciplines as mentioned in Annexure-2. 4. It is highlighted that this appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 was extended from time to time and on the date of filing of this writ application also the petitioner continued as a Lecturer in the discipline of Psychiatry. Attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that for recruitment in teaching branch in the Medical Colleges in the State, statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been framed known as "the Orissa Medical Education Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1979. Attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that for recruitment in teaching branch in the Medical Colleges in the State, statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been framed known as "the Orissa Medical Education Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1979. As per the said Rules of 1979, recruitment to the posts of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) in any speciality or higher speciality is made by the Orissa Public Service Commission by following the procedure as envisaged in Rule (4) thereof. 5. There was an advertisement by the Orissa Public Service Commissioner on 31st August, 1996, being Advertisement No. 7 of 1996-97, vide Annexure-4 to the writ application for filling up Junior Teaching Posts (Lecturers) in thirty-one disciplines under the Orissa Medical Education Service as indicated therein and the discipline of Psychiatry finds mention at serial number 23. In para-9 of the said advertisement it was mentioned that where the applications received would be large in number with reference to the number of vacancies advertised, the Orissa Public Service Commission would be entitled to short-list the candidates by resorting to a preliminary selection either on the basis of career marks or by conducting a preliminary written test. It is stated that in the discipline of Psychiatry, there were nine applicants including the petitioner and since the number of applicants was not considered to be large no preliminary screening or short-listing was done. The Orissa Public Service Commission, however, ultimately rejected one application out of nine and called eight candidates to the interview and selection including the petitioner. After interview and selection, the four candidates impleaded as opposite parties 4 to 7 in the writ application were selected for appointment to the posts of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) in Psychiatry which was published in the Notice Board of the Orissa Public Service Commission, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. 6. The petitioner alleges that the Orissa Public Service Commission published the said list as per Annexure-5 in gross violation of the statutory rules, i.e. the Orissa Medical Education Recruitment Rules, 1979 by adopting methods not known to the same, as a result of which the petitioner was kept out of the list and candidates who were juniors to him having inferior marks in comparison to the petitioner were selected. 7. 7. The petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 series, Annexure-7 series as also Annexure-8 to the writ application as to the achievements of the petitioner. It is alleged that the Orissa Public Service Commission in course of the interview and selection committed series of illegalities and infirmities, inasmuch as even the marks obtained by the candidates in Matriculation, Pre-University/I.Sc. Examinations and other Under-Graduate studies were added to the marks obtained in the medical studies, as a result of which the petitioner was kept out of the list of selected candidates. 8. It is submitted that it is of great importance to note that no marks were given in the interview for research publications and there was no consideration of the experience and academic attainments as mentioned in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and there was complete violation of the statutory guidelines. 9. In the writ application averment has also been made with illustration that in the school level, there are subjects like Sanskrit, Oriya, History, Civics, Social Studies, Mathematics, Home Science, English, etc. which have got nothing to do with medical studies. One may secure very high marks in such subjects,but the same cannot be determining factor and should not in any manner disturb the marks obtained in the subjects connected with medical career. Certainly academic attainments would mean the attainments in medical studies, publications in research, articles in important medical magazines, etc. and experience would mean the experience as Assistant Surgeon/ Teacher and performances connected with the same, the ability and aptitude to teach means to see whether the man is suitable to discharge the duties of a Teacher with his educational learning and such being the purpose of the rule, the best of the medical graduates and the best of the Teachers/Assistant Surgeons with their studies and learning could not have been kept out of consideration by applying career marks not connected with the same. 10. It is also pointed out that in course of the interview, the petitioner came to know that 100 marks were allotted for career marks and only 10 marks for interview. In the said 100 marks, the marks obtained in H.S.C. and other under-Graduate studies unconnected with medical studies were included and as a result candidates who were inferior to the petitioner in comparison were selected. 11. In the said 100 marks, the marks obtained in H.S.C. and other under-Graduate studies unconnected with medical studies were included and as a result candidates who were inferior to the petitioner in comparison were selected. 11. Detailing all these aspects and developing the submission in greater depth, the petitioner has challenged the selection made by the Orissa Public Service Commission as also the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application before it. 12. The writ petition is opposed by the State, opposite party No. 4 Dr. Ajay Mishra and the Orissa Public Service Commission. Counter affidavits have been filed controverting the allegations of the petitioner and justifying the facts done and/or caused to have been done by the Orissa Public Service Commission as also the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. 13. Patiently we have heard the lengthy submissions made by Mr. R. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y. Das for opposite party No. 4, a candidate selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission, Mr. M. R. Mohanty the learned counsel for the Orissa Public Service Commission and Mr. P. K. Ray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. We have perused the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal is full of reasons audit has ultimately concluded that in view of the reasons indicated in the decision it was held that the procedure adopted by the Orissa Public Service Commission in selecting and recommending the names of candidates in order of merit for recruitment as Junior Teachers (Lecturers) in the Medical Colleges of the State was proper and needed no interference. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner finding the same to be devoid of merit. 14. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has come to this Court. 15. For better appreciation and effective adjudication, this Court directed Orissa Public Service Commission to produce all the original documents pertaining to the interview, award of marks, selection and recommendation for necessary appointment. Mr. M. R. Mohanty, in his usual fairness has produced all the relevant papers before this Court for perusal and appreciation. 16. Mr. 15. For better appreciation and effective adjudication, this Court directed Orissa Public Service Commission to produce all the original documents pertaining to the interview, award of marks, selection and recommendation for necessary appointment. Mr. M. R. Mohanty, in his usual fairness has produced all the relevant papers before this Court for perusal and appreciation. 16. Mr. Rath has strongly argued on behalf of the writ petitioner challenging the selection made by the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Annexure-5 as also the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal mainly on the ground that under the Orissa Medical Education Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 framed under the proviso to Articles 309 of the Constitution there is a provision for appointment of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) on ad hoc basis and by virtue of such appointment as per Annexure-2 the petitioner has been continuing as a Lecturer in Psychiatry. He submits further that it is of importance to note that the petitioner while working in the Psychiatry Department since 1985 has been discharging the clinical duties as also the duties of a Lecturer. Besides, it is submitted that on perusal of Annexure-6 series, Annexure-7 series and Annexure-8, the Court may appreciate that the petitioner had represented/participated in various International Conferences held at different places, obtained various awards for his research work at National, Zonal and State levels and has also to his credit publications for which awards have been made besides acquiring experience. Regard being had to the scope of advance science at the moment, there should be appreciation of merit of the persons concerned from various angles and different dimensions. The petitioner, according to Mr. Rath, has made indepth study in such advance science which would be evident from various annexures to the writ application. He has further argued that while the Orissa Public Service Commission invited applications for selection to the posts of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) there were certain guidelines and he has drawn attention of the Curt to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1979 which runs as follows : "(3) In selection of candidates, Commission shall give due regard to the candidate's academic attainments, experience, aptitude and ability to teach." 17. He has laid great emphasis on the aspect that the Commission is not free to make its own procedure. He has laid great emphasis on the aspect that the Commission is not free to make its own procedure. It is under the statutory obligations to follow the norms and procedure as envisaged in the aforementioned Rules and consistent with the said statutory rules and/or guidelines the Commission has to function. In the selection process if any procedure is obtained which is contrary to and inconsistent with the statutory rules and the guidelines, the entire selection process would be deemed to be vitiated and judicial scrutiny and interference is a must. It is not a case of an aggrieved candidate who has pursued this litigation challenging the selection made by experts. Rather, the petitioner has pointed out certain statutory violation in the process of selection made by the Public Service Commission and the State Administrative Tribunal having not applied its mind to properly appreciate this aspect, intervention of the Writ Court is all the more necessary. 18. The second phase of his argument is that in the selection, 100 marks having been allotted for career and only 10 for interview, best of the doctors could not be selected even with their best performance in interview as the marks secured in the H.S.C. and other under-Graduate studies were taken into consideration in evaluating career. 19. Mr. Rath argues that for making the selection there should be equal distribution of marks under different heads, even if there is no direction or rule to that effect. He has drawn attention of the Court to the decision reported in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others. He has also referred to the decision reported in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others in particular para- 16 thereof (Rajkumar v. Shakti Raj) and has submitted that in this case 100 marks had been kept for career and only 10 for interview. Since no written examination was conducted, it should have been appropriate to keep 50 marks for interview and 50 marks for the rest so that there should have been equal distribution of marks for selection. 20. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. Since no written examination was conducted, it should have been appropriate to keep 50 marks for interview and 50 marks for the rest so that there should have been equal distribution of marks for selection. 20. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, it was held that unitwise distribution of seats in Medical colleges in Tamil Nadu declared violative of Articles 14 and 15 as the object of selecting best candidates on a State-wise basis was not satisfactorily achieved by this method. The fact that applicants were allowed to apply to any one unit did not take the scheme outside the mischief of Articles 14 and 15. 21. Mr. Rath has added that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two recent decisions have clarified the position that where written examination is not held, question of allotting smaller percentage of mark for interview would not arise and allotment of 50% marks for interview and 50 % for the rest was upheld. The said recent decisions are Anzar Ahmed Vs. State of Bihar and others, and National Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar and others, . 22. It is further argued that the statute demands that there should be consideration on four aspects, such as - academic attainment, experience, aptitude and ability to teach. To Mr. Rath it would be fallacious and the rule would be nugatory if on one item 100 marks would be set apart and for the other three items only 10 marks would be there. The Court may appreciate that the Public Service Commission in this case has failed to comply with the obligations reposed on it to pursue the aspect of distribution of marks properly on four items. The main thrust of his argument is that for career marks to be awarded to a candidate marks from the stage of H.S.C. Examination are considered. He has referred to an affidavit of one expert, namely, Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar who has stated that except acting as an Expert he has no idea whether other procedures had been pursued. Mr. Rath has argued that the marks obtained by the candidates in viva voce should be taken percentwise and thus the petitioner's case could not have been ignored and the selection of opposite party No. 4 would be erroneous. 23. Mr. Mr. Rath has argued that the marks obtained by the candidates in viva voce should be taken percentwise and thus the petitioner's case could not have been ignored and the selection of opposite party No. 4 would be erroneous. 23. Mr. Rath has drawn inspiration from the decision reported in The Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Fraser and Ross and Another, wherein it was held that the Court has not only to look at the words, but also at the context, the collocation and the object of such words and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. 24. He has also referred to Atma Ram Mittal Vs. Ishwar Singh Punia, to contend that interpretation of statute should be in furtherance of the object of the statute. It is stated that the object of the statute in this case is to pick up doctors out of the best ones equipped in medical science to teach under-graduate and post-graduate students in Medical Colleges. Hence, interpretation should be to pick up the best and if the interpretation is to add marks secured in subjects unconnected with Medical Science, then it would defeat the very purpose of the statute. 25. Mr. Rath has also cited the decision reported in K.V. Muthu Vs. Angamuthu Ammal, wherein it has been held that while interpreting definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would add the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. The construction which would defeat or would likely to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted. 26. He has developed his argument drawing attention to a decision of the Apex Court reported in The State of Gujarat Vs. Chaturbhuj Maganlal, wherein it was held that it is well recognised that where the language of a statutory provision is susceptible to two interpretations, the one which promotes the object of the provision comports best with its purpose and preserves its smooth working should be chosen in preference to other which introduces inconvenience and uncertainty in the working of the system. 27. 27. He has challenged with greater force submitting that the Public Service Commission has not appreciated the statutory guidelines and the procedures even though age-old can no longer continue on proper judicial scrutiny. 28. The question of estoppel does not arise so far as statutory guidelines are concerned. He has referred to the decision reported in The State of Gujarat Vs. Chaturbhuj Maganlal S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta Vs. Patel Narandas Haribhai, to controvert the case of the Public Service Commission regarding estoppel against the statute. 29. He has argued with much vigour and force that the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal should be struck down, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not appreciated all the aspects of the case and has not properly appreciated the rules and more so the facts placed before it. He has concluded that every decision is an authority for what it decides and not what follows from it logically and a decision is either based on facts proved or assumed to be proved and has drawn attention of the Court to the decisions reported in Amar Nath Om Prakash and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others Goodyear India Ltd., Gedore (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kelvinator of India Ltd. and the Food Corporation of India and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others Vs. Thukral Anjali Deokumar and Others, in support of such proposition. 30. Mr. Y. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4, the successful candidate in the selection by Public Service Commission, supports the action of the Orissa Public Service Commission as also the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. A date-chart has been filed by him indicating different events from 1984. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the State Government service on 3rd of September, 1984 whereas opposite party No. 4 completed M.D. in 1991. Opposite party No. 4 joined the State Government service in 1992. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Teacher (Lecturer) on ad hoc basis for a period of one year in 1994. The Orissa Public Service Commission advertised for 190 posts of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) on 2.7.1996. Interview was held for the post of Junior Teacher in Psychiatry on 26.11.1996. The select list was published opposite party No. 4 being at serial No. 1 on 3.12.1996. The Orissa Public Service Commission advertised for 190 posts of Junior Teachers (Lecturers) on 2.7.1996. Interview was held for the post of Junior Teacher in Psychiatry on 26.11.1996. The select list was published opposite party No. 4 being at serial No. 1 on 3.12.1996. There was an order of the State Administrative Tribunal on 9.12.1996 not to revert the ad hoc appointee, the petitioner. The Tribunal ordered on 12.3.1997 that there was no bar in operation of select list and to appoint opposite party No. 6, a candidate of S.E.B.C. category. Opposite party No. 4 filed an application before the Tribunal for modification/ clarification of the interim orders dated 9.12.1996 and 12.3.1997, as above. This Court had passed an order on 9.4.1997 in O.J.C. No. 5356/97 directing opposite party No. 4 to approach the Tribunal for early disposal of O.A.No. 3455/96 filed by the petitioner. Hearing started in O.A.No. 3455/96 sometime in July, 1997 and final order was passed on 2.1.1998 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner and vacating interim orders. The interim order of status quo regarding posting was passed by this Court on 16.1.1998. 31. It is submitted that after joining as an Assistant Surgeon opp. party No.4 was posted to a Premier Medical College where he had no opportunity to collect the recommendations and publish various papers. At the entry to service, a mature person like petitioner cannot be compared at par with the youngster like opposite party No. 4. By making career assessment, the Orissa Public Service Commission adopted a scientific formula, and in spirit has taken into account the academic performance into consideration. He has mainly relied upon the decision reported in 1997 (I) ATT (SC) 178 (Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health and F.W. and Anr. v. Dr. Anita Puri and Ors.) wherein it was held that P.S.C. is an expert body to assess suitability. In absence of any statutory criteria P.S.C. has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit. Competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of his qualification but the career throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field, general aptitude for job, extra curriculum activities like sports and allied subjects, personality and other germane factors for assessing suitability are necessary to be assessed by the expert body. Competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of his qualification but the career throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field, general aptitude for job, extra curriculum activities like sports and allied subjects, personality and other germane factors for assessing suitability are necessary to be assessed by the expert body. Selection and appointment on the basis of higher preference qualification was held to be wholly unsustainable. Regarding allotment of marks by P.S.C. it has been held that there is no statutory rule or any guidelines for evaluation of merit of a candidate and sole authority and discretion is vested in the Commission. The Commission is required to evolve relative fitness and merit and select candidate with such evaluation which is not arbitrary unless marks allotted would be found excessive. In the matter of selection through P.S.C, the experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in field of selection, Court should be slow to interfere with its opinion unless mala fide is made out and established. P.S.C. being the expert body while it considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation. 32. It has been held in the said decision of the Apex Court that in adjudging the suitability of a person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is going to be held; his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course of interview, extra-curriculum activities like sports and other subjects, personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. In this view of the matter, the High Court was found to be wholly in error in holding that an M.D.S. qualified person like respondent No. 1 in that case was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court therefore was held to be wholly unsustainable and was reversed. 33. Mr. Y. Das submits that further in the case reported in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, it has been held that the procedure adopted in that case for selection of candidates was arbitrary and illegal. In the instant case the P.S.C. has taken note of Rule 4(3) and in absence of any written test there was career marking for the throughout career of candidates. There was nothing wrong on the part of the P.S.C. For other three aspects, proper interview was held and marks were awarded. It is submitted that for 190 posts the same procedure was followed and all the candidates those who were selected have been allowed to join their appointments excepting opposite party No. 4 and with all anxiety he is waiting for the final disposal of the present case so as to join his appointment. 34. Mr. Y. Das has refuted all the arguments made by Mr. Rath that in the present case there was neither infraction of any statutory rule or guidelines nor is there anything to show that the selection process was either perverse or vitiated by any illegality for which the selection should be set aside to the prejudice of opposite party No. 4. 35. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission has produced the entire records. We have perused the records in presence of the learned counsel. We find that in fact opposite party No. 4 stood in the position of Sl. No. 3 but he topped the list as the candidates at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 were not considered and he obtained higher marks than the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained higher marks in the interview, but after addition of career marks he stood much below opposite party No. 4 and in between opposite party No. 4 and the petitioner there are more than one candidate. Mr. Nos. 1 and 2 were not considered and he obtained higher marks than the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained higher marks in the interview, but after addition of career marks he stood much below opposite party No. 4 and in between opposite party No. 4 and the petitioner there are more than one candidate. Mr. Mohanty submits that there was no mala fide and P.S.C. acted with all bona fide and for years in absence of written test career marking is made throughout. After career marking, for all other aspects as indicated in the statutory rules the interview takes place by a body of experts and unquestionable personalities who select and recommend names for appointment. The petitioner had once before appeared for such selection but was found unsuccessful. Without any murder he again appeared this time and participated in the selection process at all material points of time. When there was no mala fide and while considering the candidature the experts consistently followed the procedure, the case of the petitioner is misconceived as was also found by the State Administrative Tribunal with reasons and the Writ Court should be slow to interfere in the matter and upset the decision of the Tribunal. 36. Mr. Mohanty has further submitted that the steps taken by P.S.C. were quite without any infirmity and it cited genuinely and bona fide and there is nothing wrong from any angle of vision. 37. Mr. P. K. Ray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has supported the case of opposite party No. 4 as also the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal as also the recommendation of the P.S.C. 38. Patiently we have considered all the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, on behalf of opposite party No. 4, on behalf of the Public Service Commission as also the State. 39. We remember the arguments of Mr. Rath that while there would be short listing in absence of written test, this short listing should not be taken for granted to be a part and parcel of the selection process and there should not be 100 marks for career marking and 10 marks for all the other three aspects by interview. 40. With all anxiousness we have considered the submission of Mr. Rath and checked up the statute in between the lines. 40. With all anxiousness we have considered the submission of Mr. Rath and checked up the statute in between the lines. Though it is for the purpose of selection the P.S.C. will take into consideration the four aspects for evaluation, yet there is no guidelines as to on which aspect what mark should be given. If the Public Service Commission with its own modality for years together has been following the procedure that in absence of any written examination career marking would be made and with this process the inter view would take place for the other three aspects and the marks obtained in the interview would be added to the career mark, we do not find that there is infraction of any statutory guidelines or violation of any statute. True it is that in the advertisement there was indication that in the absence of written examination career marking would be there by short listing the candidates, but that does not mean that for the purpose of selection career mark would be overlooked or that there should be distribution of marks equally for the four aspects and in absence thereof the selection in the instant case would be deemed to be vitiated for which Annexure-5 should be quashed and consequently the judgment of the Tribunal should be upset. 41. With much deliberation on this aspect and regard being had to the facts of the present case in greater depth and details, we do not find that it would be prudent on the part of the Writ Court to interfere with the experts' view in absence of any allegation as to mala fide or extraneous consideration. The expert committee with its experience has made the selection and we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 42. For the foregoing reasons, although we appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. R. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are afraid we cannot grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. We dismiss the writ petition and vacate all the interim orders. There will be no order as to costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. 43. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed