ORDER I. Mahanty, J. - Dr. Sarbanarayan Mishra, the Petitioner herein has filed the present writ application, inter alia, with a prayer to direct the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (in short 'OUAT')-opposite parties to absorb the Petitioner on regular basis in terms of Rule-49 of the Statute, 1965. 2. The relevant facts germane to the present proceeding are that the Board of Management of the OUAT passed the resolution dated 24.11.1990 to appoint PGRF (Post Graduate Research Fellow) students against Class-II vacant post in various research schemes. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner possessing the necessary eligibility criteria, duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange, was called upon to face selection process consisting of the written test and viva-voce test for the post of PGRF on 24. 12. 1992 and on being found competent, was duly selected through the rigorous selection process and the Petitioner was appointed as a "Junior Scientist" (Ag. Eco) at NARP, Bhawanipatna which is a vacant Class-II Cadre post. It is further submitted that since the date of appointment the Petitioner had to discharge his duties to the best of his ability at various courses for which he was transferred from time to time and since he continued on such and there was auto stagnant in his carrier, made representations dated 19.5.2006 and 22.7.2006 to the Vice-Chancellor under Annexure- 7 series for invoking Rule-15 of the OUAT Statute, 1965 and observing the Petitioner in the post which was still lying vacant and against which he was duly performing his task. 3. Sri. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, placed reliance upon Clause-49 of the Statute, 1965 which is quoted hereinbelow: 49. Whenever a permanent post in any grade and pay scale is available for substantive appointment, the claim of any University employee holding a tenure post or temporary post continuously for a period exceeding two years in that grade and pay scale and possessing the qualifications required for the permanent post, shall be considered first for substantive appointment in that permanent post. 4. Sri. 4. Sri. Mishra submitted that the post in which the Petitioner was working, is a permanent post in Grade-II and he had been duly performing his task and responsibility cast on him from the date of his appointment, i.e., 13.05.1993 which is now more than a period of 15 years and in terms of Clause-49 of the Statute, the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for substantive appointment in that permanent post. He further submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of similarly situated person in OJC No. 17618 of 1997 in the case of Sri. Dayanidhi Mishra and Ors. v. OUAT, in which Division Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Das and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Samantray by judgment dated 27.7.2005 came to hold that Clause-49 was squarely applicable to the case of the Petitioners therein, who are similarly circumstanced as the present Petitioner and they had been appointed pursuant to the self-same advertisement. Their Lordships were further pleased to direct that the case of the Petitioners should be first considered in terms of Clause-49 of the Statute, 1965. From the notification under Annexure-8 to the writ application dated 15.2.2006, it appears that the OUAT in compliance with the directions as noted hereinabove have been pleased to appoint the Petitioners therein on a regular basis. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contention, Sri. Mishra submits that the writ application ought to be allowed and similar directions may be issued along with the consequential service benefits be released to the Petitioner. 6. Sri. G.S. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the OUAT, on the other hand, submitted that Clause-49 would have no applicability to the present case since the Petitioner though appointed to a vacant permanent post as PGRF which was a Grade-III post and the pay scale is similarly applicable to Grade-III post. 7. On a consideration of the averments made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and we find that the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the University cannot be accepted, since the very same argument had been advanced on behalf of the University before the Court in O.J.C. No. 17618 of 1997, this Court on consideration of the same has rejected the said contention. 8. 8. At this point, it is relevant to quote paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit filed by the University which is as follows: ....Accordingly, the Petitioner belonging to AGRL. Economic subject was appointed as PGRF against the vacant post of junior scientist. NARP, Bhawanipatna vide office order No. 11285 dtd.13.5.1993, annexed herewith as Annexure-B. He joined as such on 23.6.1993, a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-C. Since the Petitioner has not been appointed in Class-II cadre post, he hasn't been given the scale of pay meant for the said post and hence the claim of the Petitioner to give him consequential benefits of Class-II post from his date of joining as PGRF is not possible. 9. The aforesaid averments of the University clearly indicates that there was a vacancy in Class-II Cadre post and though the Board of Management for selection of PGRF, selected the Petitioner for the purpose of being appointed against the said vacancy, due to certain problems, though the Petitioner was appointed as PGRF, his appointment was not made against the vacancy in Class-II Cadre Post of the University. 10. It further appears that the Petitioner's right accrued from the date of his appointment in 1993 as a PGRF since he has been called upon to perform the duty of Class-II Cadre post. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the University is rejected. 11. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The opposite party-University is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of Clause-49 of the QUAT Statute, 1965 and to make a substantive appointment of the Petitioner against the vacant Class-II cadre post which he presently holds along with consequential benefits. This direction may be carried out within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed