JUDGMENT B.P. PATEL, J. — The legality of common order dated 09.01.1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. Nos.2038 (C) of 1994 and 2499 (C) of 1997 filed under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is assailed in this writ petition. Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 were the State Respondents before the Tribunal. Writ petitioners were respondent Nos.5 to 11, O.P. No.6 was respondent No.4 and O.P. No.7 to 10 were applicant Nos.1 to 4 in O.A. No.2038 of 1994. O.P. No.11 was the applicant in O.A. 2499 (C) of 1997. 2. Specific prayers made in the writ petition are : “(a) a writ of certiorari be issued to the Opposite parties (especially to the Opp.party No.1) quashing the common order/judgment dated 09.01.1998 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.A. No.2038 (C) of 1994 and O.A. No.2499 (C) of 1997 (so far it declares the Executive Instructions under Annexure-1 Series dated 03.04.1991, 13.08.1993, 04.09.1993, 27.12.1993 and 11.02.1994 to be in constitutional/violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and direction to treat the employment of the present petitioners as ad hoc employment; (b) a writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to treat the petitioners to be in regular employment in State Gov¬ernment Service.” 3. Facts leading to filing of Writ Petition, briefly described, are as follows : In the absence of a recruitment rules, the State Govern¬ment in the General Administration Department (in short ‘G.A. Department’) issued instructions and guidelines from time to time in the years 1972, 1979, 1985, 1980, 1989 and 1991 for prepara¬tion of a panel of engineering diploma holders by a Committee of Chief Engineers for filling of vacancies meant to be manned by the engineering diploma holders in different establishments in the State Government and Public Sector Undertakings. Such in¬structions of the State Government issued on 03.04.1991 reads : “Government of Orissa. General Administration Department. RESOLUTION Bhubaneswar, dated 3.4.1991. Sub :- Employment of un-employed Diploma Engineers of dif¬ferent disciplines under the Government Departments/Government Undertakings. Read :- P & S Department Resolution No. SC/6-98/79-19877-Gen. dated 6.8.79. Instructions were issued in the Erstwhile Political and Services Department (now General Administration Department) Resolution No.SC/6-98/79, 19877/Gen. General Administration Department. RESOLUTION Bhubaneswar, dated 3.4.1991. Sub :- Employment of un-employed Diploma Engineers of dif¬ferent disciplines under the Government Departments/Government Undertakings. Read :- P & S Department Resolution No. SC/6-98/79-19877-Gen. dated 6.8.79. Instructions were issued in the Erstwhile Political and Services Department (now General Administration Department) Resolution No.SC/6-98/79, 19877/Gen. Dated 6.8.79 and Irrigation and Power Department Letter No. 41816 dated 11.9.89 for constitution of a committee consisting of Chief Engineers and other Heads of Departments concerned for appointment of Diploma Holders in Civil and Electrical Engineering to different Depart¬ments and other Government Offices after obtaining information from the concerned Departments regarding their requirements. 2. But there was no provision in the aforesaid Resolution for recruitment of Junior Engineers other than Civil and Electri¬cal. After careful consideration Government have been pleased to decide that the said committee with the following officials as Chairman and Members will also empanel Diploma holders of all Engineering disciplines. 1. Chief Engineer, Delta & Flood Control (Irrigation) ... Member 2. Chief Engineer, Road -do- 3. C.B. Electricity and Electrical Projects -do- 4. C.E. Building-I -do- 5. C.E. P.H.I. -do- 6. C.E., National Highway -do- 7. C.E. Mechanical of Irrigation Deptt. -do- 8. Establishment Officer, Office of the C.E., National High Way. Secretary of the committee The Committee may co-opt. any other Chief Engineer/Head of the Department/Corporation as a Member as may be necessary. The Senior-most Chief Engineer will act as Chairman of the Committee. 3. The Criteria for selection by the Committee shall be fixed taking into consideration the requirements of different Departments concerned. 4. All appointments in the Government Departments Undertak¬ing and other Government, institutions are to be made of this panel of candidates maintained by the Committee. Other provisions as contained in the erstwhile P & S Department Resolution re¬ferred to above shall remain in un-altered. ORDER Ordered that the Resolution be published in the Orissa Gazette for General information. Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be forwarded to all Departments of Government/All Heads of Departments/Members Board of Revenue/All District Collectors/Secretary to Governor/Registrar, Orissa High Court/Secretary, OPSC/Principal Secretary to Chief Minister and Director of Printing, Stationary and Publi¬cation, Orissa, Cuttack. By order of the Governor Sd/- C.Narayanaswamy. Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be forwarded to all Departments of Government/All Heads of Departments/Members Board of Revenue/All District Collectors/Secretary to Governor/Registrar, Orissa High Court/Secretary, OPSC/Principal Secretary to Chief Minister and Director of Printing, Stationary and Publi¬cation, Orissa, Cuttack. By order of the Governor Sd/- C.Narayanaswamy. Special Secretary to Government.” In spite of such instructions, the Director of Mines (in short ‘Director’) initiated process of recruitment from among the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange for the posts of Senior Surveyor and Senior Inspector of Mines under his control. The process of recruitment adopted by the Director was objected to by the State Government when the Director requested the Administrative Department i.e. the Steel and Mines Department (in short S & M Department) to depute the Deputy Secretary of the Department to be the observer of the written examinations of the recruitment. However, as the written tests were conducted, the State Government in the S & M Department further directed the Director not to undertake the valuation of the answer papers and not to declare the results. Notwithstanding such directions, the Director again requested the Deputy Secretary of the S & M. Department in letter dated 01.09.1993 to attend the meeting of the Selection Board on 06.09.1993. In such circumstances clear instruction was issued to the Director vide letter No.10068/SM, dated 04.09.1993, as follows : “Government of Orissa Department of Steel and Mines. No.10068/SM, Bhubaneswar, the 4.9.93. From Sri N. Mohanty Deputy Secy. to Government To The Director, Mining & Geology, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Sub : Written test for recruitment of Sr. Surveyors and Sr. Inspector of Mines. Ref : This Deptt. Letter No.9439/SM dt. 13.8.93. Sir, I am directed to invite reference to your letter No.249/DMC dt. 24.8.93 and D.O. Letter No.256 dt. 1.9.93 on the subject noted above and to say that the matter is being examined at Government level. Hence pending receipt of further clearance from this Department you are requested not to proceed further with the current selection process which you have initiated. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secy. to Government.” When the matter was referred to the G.A. Department for necessary advice, the S & M Department was advised to follow the instructions as outlined in the resolution dated 03.04.1991 for recruitment to the aforesaid posts. Being dissatisfied, the Director again requested the State Government by Letter dated 03.01.1994 to review the entire issue. to Government.” When the matter was referred to the G.A. Department for necessary advice, the S & M Department was advised to follow the instructions as outlined in the resolution dated 03.04.1991 for recruitment to the aforesaid posts. Being dissatisfied, the Director again requested the State Government by Letter dated 03.01.1994 to review the entire issue. However the G.A. Depart¬ment reiterated their earlier view which was communicated to the Director by letter dated 11.02.1994. In such circumstances, the Director filled up four posts each of Senior Surveyor and Senior Inspector Mines by the candidates out of the panel sponsored by the Committee of Chief Engineers. The applicants in O.A. No.2038 (C) of 1994 approached the Tribunal for giving a direction to the State respondents to publish the merit list of and issue appointment letters to the candidates who were selected by the Director. The applicant in O.A. No.2499(C) of 1997, on the other hand, approached the Tribu¬nal with the prayer that the panel prepared by the Committee of Chief Engineers should be worked out. The applicants took the stand that the recruitment had to be made on the basis of Government of Orissa in the G.A. Department Resolution dated 16.3.1991 and there was no scope for a committee to select candidates by preparing a panel. It was contended that the Director having followed the principle laid down in the resolution dated 16.3.1991, the recruitment initiated by him should be worked out. The Tribunal, upon reference to rival contentions, passed the impugned order observing that all the executive instructions violated Article 16 of the Constitution on the ground that there might be many candidates who were eligible although they were not diploma holders of educational institutions in Orissa. They could not be left out in this process. The Tribunal further observed that the selection on the basis of resolution dated 16.03.1991 or preparing panel of names of the successful candidates of Orissa School Mining Engineering only is not in accordance with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal further held that to give benefit to all the candidates eligible as required under Article 16, public advertisement should be made so that mischief or mistake in Employment Exchange can be avoided as an eligible candidate can raise objection that his name has not been spon¬sored. 4. The Tribunal further held that to give benefit to all the candidates eligible as required under Article 16, public advertisement should be made so that mischief or mistake in Employment Exchange can be avoided as an eligible candidate can raise objection that his name has not been spon¬sored. 4. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by O.P. No.4, O.P. No.6, O.P. Nos.8 and 9, and O.P. No.11. That apart, petitioner No.6, on behalf of all the petitioners has also filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No.4, the Direc¬tor. 5. We have carefully gone through the averments made by the parties as well as other materials on record and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. At the outset, it is observed that reliance of the applicants before the Tribunal on resolution dated 16.3.1991 is misconceived. Said resolution relates to recruitments of Class-III and Class-IV posts which were not covered by any statute and earlier entrusted to the Directorate of Examinations under the Board of Revenue, Orissa. The resolution providing for new job policy of the Government for recruitment of Class-III Non-gazet¬ted and Specially Gazetted posts contemplated establishment of Subordinate Staff Selection Commission which would replace the Directorate of Examinations. However, it was specifically provid¬ed in the resolution that pending establishment of Subordi¬nate Staff Selection Commission, the process of selection as before would continue. Paragraph 3 of the resolution dated 16.3.1991 issued by Government of Orissa in the G.A. Department reads : “Pending establishment of the Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, it has been decided by Government that the respective Departments/Heads of Departments will recruit candidates to all Non-gazetted and Specially Declared Gazetted posts which form state Cadres as it was prior to the setting up of the Directorate of Examinations.” So far as previous method of recruitment of engineering diploma holders is concerned, initial instructions and guidelines in respect of Civil Engineers only were modified from time to time to govern recruitment to the posts in all engineering disci¬plines. 7. It is well settled that in absence of any recruitment rules, the executive instructions issued by the State Government governing the recruitment to the posts and services of the State shall hold the field. 7. It is well settled that in absence of any recruitment rules, the executive instructions issued by the State Government governing the recruitment to the posts and services of the State shall hold the field. Though executive instructions cannot be in derogation of Statutory Rules, power of the State Government to issue executive instructions for filling up or gap or covering up area which otherwise has not been covered by the existing Rules is well recognized. In this connection, Union of India v. Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service, AIR 2008 S.C. 3 and Ananta Kishore Pandit & others v. State of Orissa and two others, 2008 (II) OLR 307 may be referred to. The Tribunal, without reference to such principles, declared the executive instructions in question as unconstitutional being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. However, so far as the process of recruitment through Employment Exchange is concerned, if the appointment is considered solely on the ground that a candidate is sponsored by the Employment Exchange without considering applications received from eligible persons for appointment to the post, it will amount to denial of the right to equal opportunity in the matters relat¬ing to employment protected under Article 16(1) of the Constitu¬tion. This Court is in complete agreement with the observations made by the Tribunal in this regard for which it is not necessary to go further to discuss whether the process of selection con¬ducted by the Director is beyond his competency. As is revealed from the records, the State Government is following the practice of preparing a panel since long on the basis of career marks and giving appointment out of such panel as and when vacancy arises in the posts meant to be filled up by mining diploma holders. The Tribunal observed that for the purpose of employment the minimum requirement is the public advertisement to give opportu¬nity to all eligible candidates to appear. Unless the vacancies and the intention to fill up the vacancies are let known, eligi¬ble candidates have no scope to offer their candidature. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Orissa School of Mining Engineering, Keonjhar was the only institution which conferred Diploma in Mining Engineering. Unless the vacancies and the intention to fill up the vacancies are let known, eligi¬ble candidates have no scope to offer their candidature. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Orissa School of Mining Engineering, Keonjhar was the only institution which conferred Diploma in Mining Engineering. The executive instruc¬tions to prepare a panel on the basis of career marks of the candidates of the said institution for giving appointment out of such panel is not violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as all the eligible candidates holding diploma therefrom have the scope to be considered for appointment to the posts of Senior Surveyors in Geology and Senior Inspectors of Mines. It may also be pointed out that admittedly the executive instructions were issued pursuant to the scheme or policy of the State Government to contain the unemployment problem of the engineering diploma holders of the State. Such a policy of the State Government is not amenable to scrutiny by any judicial or quasi judicial body. 8. Administrative Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself the power to judge comparative merits of candidates and consider fitness and suitability for appointment. The mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the purview of the executive. It is not for the judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decisions falling exclu¬sively within the purview of the executive. In absence of any recruitment rules, the Tribunal cannot invalidate the appointment by holding that appointment to the post is to be governed by stretching a recruitment rule made for another post. It is well settled that where no statutory rules are made regulating re¬cruitment and conditions of services, the State Government always can in exercise of its executive power issue administrative instructions providing for recruitment and laying down conditions of service. In this connection, decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. It is well settled that where no statutory rules are made regulating re¬cruitment and conditions of services, the State Government always can in exercise of its executive power issue administrative instructions providing for recruitment and laying down conditions of service. In this connection, decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab and others, AIR 1975 S.C. 984 ; Durga Devi and another v. State of H.P. and others, AIR 1997 S.C. 2618 ; State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Sadanandam and others, AIR 1989 S.C. 2060 and B.N. Sinha v. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 S.C. 2600 as well as of this Court Bhagaban Mishra and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2000 (II) OLR 137 may be referred to. 9. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal declaring the executive instructions so contained in the government resolutions to be unconstitutional is not sustainable. Therefore the direction of the Tribunal to treat the appointment of the Writ Petitioners to be on ad hoc basis is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside to that extent. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.