JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - Since all these writ petitions are inter-related, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Orissa Public Service Commission (in short 'OPSC') invited applications from amongst Assistant Surgeons working under the State Government/State Government Undertakings/Lecturers under the State Government in the Medical Colleges and its attached Hospitals of the State and holding Post-Graduate Degree in different disciplines vide Advertisement No. 7/1996-97 for the Junior Teaching posts (Lecturers) in different disciplines in Class II of the Orissa Medical Education Service in the Pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 with usual allowances as admissible under the rule of the Government of Orissa. The last date of receipt of the applications was 31.8.1996. The instant matter is related to the Junior Teaching Posts (Lecturers) in the discipline of Medicine. In the said advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that one-third of the vacancies in each category are reserved for women. Where adequate number of eligible women candidates are not available, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by male candidates. The particulars of discipline in medicine were given in the advertisement as under: 3. The above particulars shows that out of 15 vacancies in the discipline of Medicine, 4 were reserved for S.T. out of which two were for women candidate, 2 for S.C. candidates, 2 for S.E.B.C. candidates and seven were reserved for general category candidate. Since 1/3rd of the vacancies in each category was to be reserved for women, therefore, it appears that to avoid any confusion against the vacancies for S.T, it was mentioned that for women 2 vacancies were reserved but for others, it was 1/3rd of the total vacancy in each category. 4. Vide letter dated 22.1.1997, the OPSC recommended the names of 16 successful candidates with the information that the Commission as a general principle had decided to recommend 1/3rd more than the number of advertised vacancies to cater for contingencies such as drop outs owing to acceptance of other offers, disqualification on medical grounds, verification of antecedents etc. The letter dated 22.1.1197 is reproduced: No. 9", "ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 19, Dr. P.K. Parija Road, CTC-753001 Dated 22.1.1997 From O.C Das Special Secretary To The Secretary to Government of Orissa Health & Family Welfare Deptt. The letter dated 22.1.1197 is reproduced: No. 9", "ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 19, Dr. P.K. Parija Road, CTC-753001 Dated 22.1.1997 From O.C Das Special Secretary To The Secretary to Government of Orissa Health & Family Welfare Deptt. Bbsr Sub: Ref: Sir, Recruitment to the posts of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Medicine in Class-II of OMES Health & Family Department Letter No. 17524/H. I am directed to state that the notified number of vacancies for recruitment to the post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Medicine In Class-II of O.M.E.S. in fifteen. The Commission, as a general principle have decided to recommend 1/3rd more than the number of advertised vacancies to cater for contingencies such as drop outs owing to acceptance of other offers, disqualification on medical grounds, verification of antecedents etc. unless the recruitment rules do not prescribe otherwise commission recommend the following sixteen candidates in order of merit for recruitment to the post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Medicine in Class-II of O.M.E.S. after completion of via voce:- Dr. Snigdha Tripathy (W) Dr. Chandi Prasad Das Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty, Dr. Sushree Parida S.E.B.C(W),Dr. Namita Mohanty (W) Dr. Chhabi Satapathy (W) Dr. Saroj Kumar Tripathy Dr. Uma Sankar Mishra Dr. Jadumani Nayak. S.E.B.C. Dr. Namita Mohapatra (W) Dr. Sibaprasad Mohanty Dr. Purna Chandra Dash Dr. Puma Chandar Karua (S.C.) Dr. Bijaya Kumar Behera (S.C.) Dr. Rabindranath Behera (S.C.) Dr. Malati Murmu, S.T.(W) As against 4 vacancies reserved for S.T. category, only1 candidate is available & recommend. Three candidates viz. Dr. Chandrakant Mishra, Dr. Nilakantha foishra and Dr. Mirza Nayeem Ali Bad were allowed to appear at the V.V.test in pursuant to interim orders of O.A.T in O.A. No. 42(C)/97, O.A. No. 194(C)/97 and O.A. No. 4222(Q/96 respectively. In these aforesaid cases, the Tribunal have passed the orders that any action taken pursuant to such interview shall be subject to the final result of these cases. The result of the aforesaid three candidates have been kept in sealed cover as per the direction of the Tribunal. In this connection, a letter dt.20.1.97 from one Dr. Shyam Sundar Mohapatra received in respect of Dr. Sushree Parida at Sl.No A is forwarded herewith for necessary action as Govt. may deem fit. The application & attention form of above sixteen candidates are sent herewith. Encl: As above Yours faithfully, Sd/-22.1.97 Special Secretary Here it is necessary to mention brief facts of the case. Dr. Shyam Sundar Mohapatra received in respect of Dr. Sushree Parida at Sl.No A is forwarded herewith for necessary action as Govt. may deem fit. The application & attention form of above sixteen candidates are sent herewith. Encl: As above Yours faithfully, Sd/-22.1.97 Special Secretary Here it is necessary to mention brief facts of the case. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal who was continuing as Junior Lecturer in Medicine on ad hoc basis also applied pursuant to the said advertisement as a S.E.S.C. candidate. However, she could not be selected in order of merit. One Dr. Sushree Parida who ranked fourth in the merit list and happened to be a S.E.S.C. candidate, however, did not join. As the Government did not fill up the vacancy caused due to non-joining, of Dr. Sushree Parida, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1 047 of 1997 praying for a direction to consider her candidature as a SESC candidate for the post of Lecturer in Medicine treating Dr. S.Parida as a general candidate. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 10.3.1998 with the following directions: As per the situation prevailing now one post of Lecturer ear-marked for SESC (Women) against which Dr. Parida was appointed is vacant if she has not joined. We, therefore, dispose of these applications with the direction that if a post of Junior Teacher in Medicine ear-marked for SESC (Women) which was advertised' vide Annexure-4 in O.A. No. 1047(C)/97 has remained vacant due to Dr. Parida not joining that post and there is necessity for manning that post, then O.P. No. 1 shall place requisition with the Commission for recommending a candidate who belongs to that category and selected by them and if the Commission recommends the name of the applicant, then she may be appointed against that vacancy. O.P. No. 1 shall take a decision as to whether requisition should be sent to the Commission or not within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then the applicant, if she is working as an ad-hoc Lecturer in Medicine as on today, be allowed to continue in that post. As the State Government delayed taking decision pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner filed I.P. No. 178(C) of 1998 for taking action against the state for disobedience of the order. Till then the applicant, if she is working as an ad-hoc Lecturer in Medicine as on today, be allowed to continue in that post. As the State Government delayed taking decision pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner filed I.P. No. 178(C) of 1998 for taking action against the state for disobedience of the order. On receipt of notice, State Government placed requisition with the O.P.S.C. on 16.10.1999 pursuant to which the O.P.S.C. furnished the entire select list wherein Dr. Nirjharini Dhal was placed at Sl. No. 22. In reply to the show cause notice, the State Government took the following grounds: i) Dr. Sushree Parida joined on 29.3.1997 and left the post on 30.3.1997. Her resignation was finally accepted on 31.12.1999. Hence, that post should be taken as a fresh vacancy which arose on 31.11.1999 after the validity of the select list in question was over and it cannot be utilized for filling up that vacancy; ii) The applicant has not been recommended by the P.S.C.; iii) There are a number of doctors placed above her in the select list and she cannot be appointed leaving them out. All the aforesaid grounds did not find favour with the Tribunal, which by order dated 28.6.2000 disposed of the I.P. directing that Dr. Dhal shall be issued order of regular appointment within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the above order, Dr. Dhal was appointed as Junior Teacher by order dated 4.1.2002 and she joined the post on the same day. It may be stated here that Dr. J.K.Panda, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. 8031 of 2006 and 10622 of 2006 was appointed as Junior Teacher in Medicine vide notification dated 7.12.1998 of the Health and Family Welfare Department in the recruitment held pursuant to the advertisement No. 10/1997 -98. But in the order appointing Dr. Dhal as Junior Teacher in Medicine it was mentioned that on appointment Dr. Nirjharini Dhal shall take her inter se seniority in the rank of Jr. Teacher in Medicine below Dr. Purna Chandra Das, Junior Teacher in Medicine and above Dr. Jayant Kumar Panda. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal filed O.A. No. 9", of 2005 challenging the letter dated 25.12.2004 addressed to the Government by which the O.P.S.C. opined that the order of the Government fixing the seniority of Dr. Dhal between Dr. Teacher in Medicine below Dr. Purna Chandra Das, Junior Teacher in Medicine and above Dr. Jayant Kumar Panda. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal filed O.A. No. 9", of 2005 challenging the letter dated 25.12.2004 addressed to the Government by which the O.P.S.C. opined that the order of the Government fixing the seniority of Dr. Dhal between Dr. P.K. Mohanty and Dr. N. Mohanty appeared to be erroneous as the position of Dr. Dhal according to the merit list drawn by the O.P.S.C. was below Dr. P.C. Das and therefore, recommended the Government to refix the seniority of the Petitioner below Dr. P.C. Das in the rank of Junior Teachers (Lecturer) in medicine. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the said recommendation of the O.P.S.C. against which Dr. Dhal has filed W.P.(C) No. 9145 of 2006. She had also filed O.A. No. 1994 of 2005 praying for a direction to Count her ad hoc period of service from 9.8.94 and to regularize her service from 17.3.97 instead of 4.1.2002 and to redetermine the seniority list. The Tribunal referring to its order in O.A. No. 9", of 2005, declined to interfere with the order placing Dr. Dhal below Dr. P.C. Das in the seniority list but granted her liberty to approach the appropriate authority for allowing her continuity of service except for seniority. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 9451 of 2006 challenging the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 1904 of 2005. She also filed O.A. No. 1569 of 2005 for quashing the order dated 3.5.2005 determining her inter se seniority below Dr. P.C. Das and above Dr. J.K. Panda, in the rank of Junior Teacher in Medicine and the order dated 18.11.2008 reverting.her from the post of Asst. Professor. Holding that Dr. J.K. Panda was selected pursuant to a subsequent selection and, therefore, he is junior to Dr. Dhal and in view of the order passed in O.A. No. 9", of 2005, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 1569 of 2005 being devoid of merit. W.P.(C) No. 9450 of 2006 has been filed by Dr. Dhal challenging the said order. Dr. J.K. Panda, however, sought to intervene in O.A. No. 1904 of 2005 by filing an application for intervention numbered as M.P. No. 294 (C) of 2005. The Tribunal rejected the same holding that Dr. W.P.(C) No. 9450 of 2006 has been filed by Dr. Dhal challenging the said order. Dr. J.K. Panda, however, sought to intervene in O.A. No. 1904 of 2005 by filing an application for intervention numbered as M.P. No. 294 (C) of 2005. The Tribunal rejected the same holding that Dr. Panda was a recruit on the basis of the examination held in 1997-98 whereas Dr. Dhal was a recruit of the examination held in 1996-97. Therefore, he had No. role to intervene in the O.A. Dr. Panda had also filed O.A. No. 140 of 2005 praying to quash the order of appointment of Dr. Dhal so far as it related to fixation of her inter 58 seniority. above him and for a direction to finalise and publish the gradation list of Junior Teachers as per Rule 13 of the OMES Rules, 1979. During pendency of the said O.A. No. 140 of 2005 when the State Government held DPC for considering promotion to the post of Asst. Professor in Medicine and considered the name of Dr. Dhal as per her seniority fixed in her order of appointment, Dr. Panda filed M.P. No. 190 of 2006 for interim protection. When the Tribunal did not pass any order, the Petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 8031 of 2006 praying for a direction to the opposite parties, inter alia, to fix the inter se seniority of Dr. Dhal, who is opposite party No. 4 in this writ petition, below the Petitioner by reckoning the period of service rendered by them in the teaching post from the date of their regular appointment and this Court on 20.6.2006 directed maintenance of status quo as on that date in respect of working of the Dr. Panda and Dr. Dhal. He has also filed W.P.(C) No. 10622 of 2006 praying to quash the observation of the Tribunal in order dated 11.5.2006 in a A. No. 1904 (C) of 2005 that Dr. J.K. Panda was selected pursuant to a subsequent selection and therefore he is junior to Dr. Dhal and to declare that the appointment of Dr. Dhal as Lecturer in Medicine by order dated 4.1.2002 was not in conformity with the OMES Rules and therefore was not proper, valid and regular and,therefore, she cannot claim any benefit of seniority on the basis of such appointment. 5. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. Dhal and to declare that the appointment of Dr. Dhal as Lecturer in Medicine by order dated 4.1.2002 was not in conformity with the OMES Rules and therefore was not proper, valid and regular and,therefore, she cannot claim any benefit of seniority on the basis of such appointment. 5. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. 9145, 9450 and 9451 of 2006 along with other candidates had also applied as S.E.B.C. candidates. Since she was women and, therefore, the OPSC specifically mentioned against her name while sending the selection list of 22 candidates in order of merit to the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Department of Health and Family Welfare vide their letter dated 18.11.1999 as women denoted by the word 'W'. The said letter of the OPSC is reproduced as under: ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 19, Dr. P.K.PARIJA Road, CUTTACK, 753001 No. 5120 P.S.C. Dated the 18/X1I99 From Jyoti Prakash Das Special Secretary To The Additional Secretary to Govt. of Orissa Health & Family Welfare Deptt. Bbsr Sub: O.A. No. 1047(C)/97 & O.A. No. 1942(C)/97 - Dr. Nirjharini Dhal -v.-State and Ors. Ref: Health & Family Department Letter No. 39209/H. dt-16.10.99 Sir, In inviting a reference to the Health & Family Welfare Department letter cited above, I am directed to furnish herewith the names of candidates upto SI. No. 22 of the merit list prepared on the basis of interview for recruitment of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Medicine in Class-II of O.M.E.S. pursuant to Advertisement No. 7 of 1996-97. The names of the candidates have been arranged in order of merit. The category such as S.C., S.T. & S.E.B.C. have been mentioned against the names of such candidate. Order of Merit Name Category 1 Dr. Snigdha Tripathy (W) 2 Dr. Chandi Prasad Das 3. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty 4. Dr. Sushree Parida (W) SEBC (W) 5. Dr. Namita Mohanty (W) 6. Dr. Chhabi Satapathy (W) 7. Dr. Saroj Kumar Tripathy 8. Dr. Umasankar Mishra 9. Dr. Jadumani Nayak SEBC 10. Dr. Namita Mohapatra (W) 11. Dr. Shri prasad Mohanty 12. Dr. Puma Chandra Dash 13. Dr. Ishani Mitra (W) 14. Dr. Bhagabat Behera SEBC 15. Dr. Panchanan Saho SEBC 16. Dr. Umarani Sikdar (W) 17. Dr. Nirupama Panda (W) 18. Dr. Gyanaranjan Pradhan 19. Dr. Ashok Kumar Pradhan SEBC 20. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena SEBC 21. Dr. Gopinath Parida SEBC 22. Dr. Dr. Shri prasad Mohanty 12. Dr. Puma Chandra Dash 13. Dr. Ishani Mitra (W) 14. Dr. Bhagabat Behera SEBC 15. Dr. Panchanan Saho SEBC 16. Dr. Umarani Sikdar (W) 17. Dr. Nirupama Panda (W) 18. Dr. Gyanaranjan Pradhan 19. Dr. Ashok Kumar Pradhan SEBC 20. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena SEBC 21. Dr. Gopinath Parida SEBC 22. Dr. Nirjharini Dhal (W) SEBC Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the letter. Yours faithfully, SD/- Speciall Secretary 7. Though the OPSC has mentioned against each name the category of the candidate as well as whether women or not but ultimately the entire merit list was sent by the OPSC. 8. A perusal of the above list shows that No. women candidate from SC category could be qualified as name of SC women candidate does not find place in the merit list and since there were 2 posts each for S.C. category as well as SESC category, No. reservation for women candidate was possible. The Government had to choose 1/3rd candidates in order of merit against 15 vacancies which comes to 5 vacancies. The total number of vacancies in all category was shown as 190 out of which 42 were shown as reserved for S.T., 29 for SC, 18 for SESC and 101 for unreserved category. Three percent posts were to be given to Ex-servicemen and physically handicapped candidates each. 9. The O.P.S.C in its letter dated 22.1.1997 has also pointed out that as against four vacancies reserved for S.T. category, only one candidate became available and was recommended. Therefore, amongst general candidates, five women were to be appointed and those were mentioned at SI No. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 10. With regard to the ST. Category, out of four posts, two were; reserved for women candidates but since only one candidate at SI No. 16 became available, therefore, it was immaterial whether she belongs to male or female category as in every case, she was the sole candidate selected and was to be taken. Since two posts were reserved for S.E.S.C. category and two candidates were selected i.e. mentioned at SI No. 4 namely, Dr. Sushree Parida and at SI No. 9 Dr. Jadumani Nayak, it was irrelevant whether they were male or female as No. reservation was shown for SESC women candidate but Dr. Since two posts were reserved for S.E.S.C. category and two candidates were selected i.e. mentioned at SI No. 4 namely, Dr. Sushree Parida and at SI No. 9 Dr. Jadumani Nayak, it was irrelevant whether they were male or female as No. reservation was shown for SESC women candidate but Dr. Sushree Parida, a S.E.S.C. candidate joined but did not turn up at all after joining and there remained only one candidate in the field i.e. Dr. Jadumani Nayak belonging to SESC category. Therefore, one more candidate was to be considered under the category of S.E.S.C. Hence, on the request of the State Government, the O.P.S.C. had sent a total list of 22 candidates in while the name of Dr. Nirjharini Dhal finds place at SI. No. 22. Against her name, the particulars (W) SESC were mentioned. Suit she was not recommended for appointment as there was No. reservation for SESC women and before her name there were already candidates from SEBC category in the merit list sent by the Commission. 10. It may be mentioned here that in the advertisement, No. post for SESC woman candidate was reserved although reservation for S.T. woman candidate was there. Similarly; No. post for woman S.C. candidate was provided. However, it was provided that one-third of the vacancies in each category were reserved for women and where adequate number of eligible women candidates were not available, the remaining vacancies should be filled up by male candidates. Even if the post reserved for SESC is taken as a category, then according to the percentage provided, 1/3rd, does not come to one post. If the discipline of Medicine is taken as one category, then 1/3rd of it comes to 5 posts to be filled up by women candidates. From the merit list of 22 candidates furnished by the OPSC, it appears that there were three SESC candidates above Dr. Dhal and two general women candidate above her in order of merit. Dr. Sushree Parida was No. doubt selected in order of merit as a general women candidate who also belonged to SESC. On her resignation/non-joining the vacancy caused should have been filled up by a general woman candidate and not a SESC woman candidate. Since there was No. reservation for women SESC candidate, out of two posts advertised in the disciplines of medicine, we think that the State Government has committed No. illegality therein. On her resignation/non-joining the vacancy caused should have been filled up by a general woman candidate and not a SESC woman candidate. Since there was No. reservation for women SESC candidate, out of two posts advertised in the disciplines of medicine, we think that the State Government has committed No. illegality therein. At the most, she was to be treated' as S.E.S.C. candidate. But before her name, two more candidates namely, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pradhan and Dr. Gopinath Parida belonging to SESC category.were shown in the merit list. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.3.1998 passed in O.A. No. 1 047 of 1997 as quoted earlier directed that if the Commission recommended the name of the applicant, i.e. Dr. Dhal, then she may be appointed against the vacancy if a post of Junior Teacher in Medicine ear-marked for SESC (Women) remained vacant due to Dr. Parida not joining the post and there was necessity for manning that post. We have perused the reply filed by the Commission in O.A. No. 1 047 of 1997 in paragraph 6 of which it was stated as under: Out of the 29 candidates appeared two SESC candidates, who were found place in SI.NoA and 9 of the combined merit list were recommended to the State Government in letter NoA19/PSC. Dated 22.1.1997, copy of which is filed herewith as Annexure-A. The applicant's name was not recommended with reference to her position in the combined merit list and the number of vacancies advertised. Her position was at sl. No. 22 of the combined merit list and she is in 8th position in respect of SEBC. The aforesaid shows that there was No. reservation for SEBC Women and Dr. Dhal secured 8th position in SEBC category in order of merit. However, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. the State Government requested the Commission to furnish the names of all selected candidates up to sl. No. 22. mentioning their categories such as S.C.,S.T. & S.E.B.C. for a detailed examination pursuant to which the Commission vide letter dated 10.11.2007 forwarded the list of 22 selected candidates without recommending the case of Dr. Dhal. But by order dated 28.6.2000 passed in I.P. No. 9", of 1998 holding that Dr. Dhal was the only candidate who staked claim for appointment against the vacancy caused due to Dr. Dhal. But by order dated 28.6.2000 passed in I.P. No. 9", of 1998 holding that Dr. Dhal was the only candidate who staked claim for appointment against the vacancy caused due to Dr. Parida not working in that post directed for issuance of order of appointment to her. It is to be noticed that by 28.6.2000, Dr. Panda had already joined being recruited pursuant to the subsequent advertisement No. 1 0/1997-98. Learned Counsel for Dr. Panda, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. 8031 and 10622 of 2006, has submitted that Dr. Dhal also applied for appointment pursuant to advertisement No. 1 0/1997 -98 and the advertisement made in 2000 but could not be selected. Therefore, she cannot steal a march over Dr. Panda who was regularly selected and joined the post before the order passed in I.P. No. 9", of 1998. There is force in the submission of the learned Counsel. 11. Since there was No. reservation for women candidate, out of two posts reserved for SEBC in the discipline of medicine, we think that the State Government has committed No. illegality therein. If Dr. Dhal was to be treated as S.E.B.C. candidate, there were two more candidates namely, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pradhan and Dr. Gopinath Parida belonging to SEBC category in the merit list above her. But she was appointed in view of the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1 047 (C) of 1997. 12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that Dr. N. Dhal was a selected candidate pursuant to advertisement for 1996-97 against a SEBC Woman quota, as there was No. such quota. On the other hand, Dr. J.K. Panda was a selected candidate whose name appeared in the merit list pursuant to the advertisement for 1997-98 issued by the Public Service Commission in which Dr. Dhal appeared but was not selected and joined the post much prior to Dr. Dhal. Therefore, in our opinion placing Dr. Dhal above Dr. Panda is improper. However, at the most the seniority of Dr. Dhal can be counted from the date of her appointment, i.e,4.1.2002 and in that situation there is No. question of counting her ad hoc period of service into regular service so as to confer on her the benefit of seniority above Or. Panda. We direct accordingly. 13. Panda is improper. However, at the most the seniority of Dr. Dhal can be counted from the date of her appointment, i.e,4.1.2002 and in that situation there is No. question of counting her ad hoc period of service into regular service so as to confer on her the benefit of seniority above Or. Panda. We direct accordingly. 13. In the result, W.P.(C) No. 9145,9450 and 9451 of 2006 are dismissed and W.P.(C) Nos. 8031 and 10622 of 2006 are allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to count the seniority of Dr. Dhal from the date of her appointment, i.e. 4.1.2002. There would be No. order as to costs. N. Prusty, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed