JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This writ application has been filed against the judgment dated 12.2.1999 passed by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A.No. 961 (C) of 1994 dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as Primary School Teacher. Vide letter dated 11.8.1987 he was prematurely retired on the ground of permanent incapacitation. His normal retirement was due on 31.1.1995. At that time there was no statutory rules framed by the legislature and only the Government had used its executive power by issuing an order providing rehabilitation assistance scheme which was issued vide Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Services Department resolution dated 20th May, 1985. The said resolution is reproduced as under : “VIE/A. 61/85 2030-EYS Government of Orissa Education & Youth Services Department. RESOLUTION SUB : Rehabilitation assistance to the families of non-Government Primary School Teachers under Education & Youth Serv¬ices Department who die or suffer form permanent incapacitation while in service. Government have had under consideration for some time past a proposal for providing rehabilitation assistance to members of the families of non-Government Primary School Teacher who dies or becomes permanently incapacitated form work while in service. After careful consideration Government have been pleased to decide that rehabilitation assistance may be made available to member of the family of the deceased or permanently disabled non-Government Primary School teacher subject to the following condi¬tions : 1. One member of the family of the deceased or permanently disabled non-Government Primary School teacher would be eligible for appointment in a Class-III or Class-IV post under Government including a post of Primary School teacher or as the Primary School teacher in a non-Government Primary School, sub¬ject to the condition that the member of the family who seeks to avail of this facility possesses the requisite educational or technical qualifications required for the post. If such a person seeks appointment as Primary School Teacher whether in a Govern¬ment or in a non-Government Primary School, he may be appointed as such, if he possesses the requisite educational qualification, he/she shall be required to acquire the necessary training quali¬fication within a period of three years form the date of appoint¬ment as a teacher in a Primary School. An untrained person appointed as a Primary School teacher would receive pay in the scale applicable to untrained matricu¬late teachers till he/she acquires the training qualification. 2. The above facilities will be available to only one member of the family of the deceased or permanently disabled Primary School teacher provided that the death or permanent disability has occurred prior to the normal date of superannuation and not during the period of re-employment or extension of service after retirement. 3. For the purpose of rehabilitation assistance being extended under this resolution, the members of the family of the deceased or permanently disabled Primary School teacher shall mean : a. Husband and wife. b. Son or daughter including adopted son or daughter, step son or daughter. c. Dependent brother or sister. 4. Applications for assistance under this resolution shall ordinarily be received within the period of five years form the date of death or permanent disability. 5. Notwithstanding the instructions contained in Labour and Employment Department Resolution No. 19479-LEH/dated the 19th November, 1975 appointing authorities would be competent to give employment to a member of the family of a deceased or permanently disabled employee who suffers such disability while in the serv¬ice of the employer in question, irrespective of whether the name of the candidate is sponsored by the Employment Exchange Notifi¬cation of vacancies required under the Employment Exchange (C.N.V.) Act being mandatory, the establishment concerned is not absolved of the responsibility to notify to the Employment Ex¬change the occurrence of the vacancies. But at the time of noti¬fying such vacancies the employer should clearly mention that since the vacancy is proposed to be filled by member of the family of a deceased/permanently disabled employee whose disability occurred while in service sponsoring action by the Employment Exchange is not necessary. 6. Rehabilitation assistance would be available only for initial appointment and not for promotional or further advance¬ment in service. ORDER : Ordered that the resolution be published in an extraordinary issue of the Orissa Gazette for information of general public and copies be forwarded to all Departments/Heads of Department All Collectors. By order of the Governor R.C.SAMAL Addl. Secretary to Govt.” 3. The petitioner had submitted his application to the Inspector of Schools concerned for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher as he was qualified to hold that post. His qualifications were B.Sc., B.Ed. By order of the Governor R.C.SAMAL Addl. Secretary to Govt.” 3. The petitioner had submitted his application to the Inspector of Schools concerned for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher as he was qualified to hold that post. His qualifications were B.Sc., B.Ed. The Inspector of Schools, Dhen¬kanal recommended his case to the Director, Secondary Education for consideration as no such post was reportedly lying vacant under the control of the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal. The Director, Secondary Education after considering the application of the petitioner, approved his appointment as against an I.A.C.T. post under the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal vide his letter dated 22.9.1989. The Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal issued appointment order dated 5.10.1999 in favour of the petitioner appointing him against a Trained Matric Post. But the petitioner was directed to officiate in the post of Head Master of Dhokuta Government M.E.School which was within the cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers. It appears that there was no vacancy at all in any other place and as such he was directed to offici¬ate as Head Master of the School. The petitioner approached the authorities for his appointment as against Trained Graduate Teacher but the same was not considered. However, the petitioner was regularly allowed to officiate as Trained Graduate Teacher. Vide order dated 5.7.1990 he was transferred to S.D.High School, Kamakshyanagar against the post of Science Teacher which is also a Trained Graduate post and since then he has been regularly working on that post but he is getting the salary of Trained Matric post only. In the year 1984 he filed the above-mentioned O.A. before the Tribunal in which initially he had prayed for appointment against an I.A.C.T. post but when he came to know that two persons have been given appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the peti¬tioner moved the Tribunal for amendment of the O.A. with the fresh prayer for consideration of his case for appointment against a Trained Graduate Post. The O.A. was dismissed by the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal it has been admitted in paragraph-8 that Shri Prakash Chandra Panigrahi and other two have been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher against direct appointment quota on retirement of their father on the ground of invalidation in pursuance of the Government letter bearing No. 36028/SME dated 12.11.1996. 5. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal it has been admitted in paragraph-8 that Shri Prakash Chandra Panigrahi and other two have been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher against direct appointment quota on retirement of their father on the ground of invalidation in pursuance of the Government letter bearing No. 36028/SME dated 12.11.1996. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Educa¬tion Department has submitted that when the above three persons were given appointment, the statutory rules, namely, Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for short ‘the Rules’) had already come into force and as such since 50% of the Trained Graduate Teacher posts are reserved for direct recruit¬ment, three persons were given appointment against Direct Re¬cruitment Scale as Trained Graduate Teachers. He further submit¬ted that at the time when the petitioner was given appointment, there was only a Government resolution and no statutory rules were framed at that time. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. When there were no statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government Resolution which was issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India was as good as statutory rule in the absence of such rules. In Article 162 of the Constitution of India, it has been specifically provided that the executive power of a State shall extend to the matter with respect to which legislature of the State has power to make laws. In the case of M/s. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and others etc. etc. reported in AIR 1982 SC 33 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, certainly the Government can carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf. Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill. 7. A perusal of the Government resolution dated 20.5.1985 quoted above would show that in paragraph 6 thereof it has been provided that the rehabilitation assistance could be available only for initial appointment and not for promotional or further advancement in service. Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill. 7. A perusal of the Government resolution dated 20.5.1985 quoted above would show that in paragraph 6 thereof it has been provided that the rehabilitation assistance could be available only for initial appointment and not for promotional or further advancement in service. It has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department that at the time when the petitioner was given appointment, 50% quota was reserved for filling up posts of Trained Graduate Teacher by direct recruitment. As such there was no difference in the source of recruitment at the time when the Government resolu¬tion under Article 162 of the Constitution was in force and rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution were not in existence and after the implementation of the rules. Therefore, if three persons could be given appointment under the direct quota as Trained Graduate Teacher, why the petitioner could not have been given appointment on that basis specially when the post of Trained Graduate Teacher was lying vacant and right form the date of appointment of the petitioner, he was allowed to officiate as Trained Graduate Teacher and is continuing as such till date. 8. In the case of Surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2001 SC 2415 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that when two persons were given appointment, on compassionate ground initially as Second Division Assistant/Clerk and later on they were appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, but the petitioner who was earlier given appointment on compassionate ground as Second Division Assistant/Clerk prior to those two persons, was not, it was held that the action of the Government was discriminatory as the State thought it fit to change the post of two other persons as Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court could not be treated differently who was appointed in the similar circumstances (on compassionate ground) as Second Division Assistant/Clerk and there was no reason as to why the appellant was treated with a hostile dis¬crimination. 9. 9. The above case is also liable to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the facts that the other three persons were given appointment directly in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher while the petitioner was although allowed to officiate as Trained Graduate Teacher form the date of his appointment, he was not given appointment on that basis although there was no vacancy in the lower post available at the time of his appointment. 10. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in the light of the observation made above. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the im¬pugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the O.A.afresh after restoring the same to its original number and providing opportu¬nity of hearing to the parties. The decision may be taken as early as possible and for this purpose the petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.8.2005 alongwith a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. I agree Application disposed of.