ORDER 1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS. 2. NONE APPEARS FOR THE RESPONDENTS, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THEM. 3. RESPONDENT 1 HEREIN APPROACHED THE ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (FOR SHORT "THE TRIBUNAL") MAKING THE GRIEVANCE THAT HIS PAST SERVICES RENDERED IN PANCHAYAT COLLEGE, BARGARH, WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING HIS SENIORITY. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED HIS APPLICATION AND HELD THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM IN PANCHAYAT COLLEGE AS WELL AS IN KHALLIKOTE COLLEGE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING HIS SENIORITY. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY E THE STATE OF ORISSA. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THREE PRIVATE COLLEGES, INCLUDING THE TWO AFOREMENTIONED, WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA ON 9-3-1971. SOME CONTROVERSY WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE LECTURERS IN THE PRIVATE COLLEGES, PRIOR TO THE TAKING OVER, SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTION TO THE POST OF READER FROM LECTURER. THE DISPUTE WAS TAKEN TO THE HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION. A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION, BEING OLC NO. 410 OF 1971, FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE TO TOTALLY IGNORE THE EXPERIENCE AND THE LENGTH OF SERVICE OF THE LECTURERS WORKING IN THE PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIOR TO THE TAKING OVER. THE STATE GOVERNMENT CAME UP G IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 1557-58 OF 1975 AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THIS COURT ALSO AFFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT IN STATE OF ORISSA V. N.N. SWAMYL. THEREAFTER, THE ORISSA EDUCATION SERVICE (COLLEGE BRANCH) RECRUITMENT RULES, 1990, WERE FRAMED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WERE LATER AMENDED BY THE ORISSA EDUCATIONAL SERVICE (COLLEGE BRANCH) RECRUITMENT (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1993 (FOR SHORT "THE RULES") AND ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION TO RULE 13 OF THE RULES, FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PAST SERVICES RENDERED BY A PERSON IN A PRIVATE COLLEGE SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY RESPONDENT 1 IN KHALLIKOTE COLLEGE ALONE COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM IN PANCHAYAT COLLEGE. THIS SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE EXPLANATION TO THE RULES, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO "THE COLLEGE". 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY RESPONDENT 1 IN KHALLIKOTE COLLEGE ALONE COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM IN PANCHAYAT COLLEGE. THIS SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE EXPLANATION TO THE RULES, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO "THE COLLEGE". IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT PANCHAYAT COLLEGE AND KHALLIKOTE COLLEGE WERE BOTH TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ON THE SAME DAY. RESPONDENT 1 WAS EARLIER WORKING IN PANCHAYAT COLLEGE AND ON THE DATE OF THE TAKING OVER, IN KHALLIKOTE COLLEGE. THE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR VIEW, WAS RIGHT IN FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN N.N. SWAMY1 AND GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE APPELLANTS. THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR COUNTING THE SERVICES RENDERED IN A PRIVATE COLLEGE WAS THE LENGTH OF SERVICE AND THE EXPERIENCE THEY HAD. IF BOTH THE COLLEGES WERE TAKEN OVER ON THE SAME DAY, RESPONDENT 1 COULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPLANATION TO RULE 13 OF THE 1993 RULES. IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHT. WE MAY ALSO NOTICE ONE MORE FACT THAT AS OF TODAY, RESPONDENT 1 APPEARS TO HAVE RETIRED FROM SERVICE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT THINK THAT ANY PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY INTERFERING WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.