JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The State of Orissa and its function¬aries are the petitioners before this Court questioning the legality of the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal in O.A. No.204 of 2001. 2. The opposite party, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had filed three Original Applications vide O.A. No.204 of 2001, O.A. No.2274 of 2000 and O.A. No.229 of 2006. All the three Original Applications were disposed of by a common order impugned before us but this writ application is directed against the order passed in O.A.No. 204 of 2001. The opposite party was appointed as a Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit in the scale of pay of Rs.840-1345/- in the dis¬trict of Phulbani. The order of appointment was issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Phulbani. Later the service of the opposite party was regularised. The Planning and Coordination Department issued a letter to the A.G. (A & E) Orissa intimating therein that 13 posts of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist had been created by order dated 30.10.1989. One post of Senior Stenographer was created on 25.7.1984 and the opposite party was asked to work against the said post while continuing as a Junior Stenographer. While continuing in the post of Senior Stenographer, his services were terminated and the said order of termination was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No.204 of 2001. O.A. No.2274 of 2000 had earlier been filed for a direction to the Secretary to Plan¬ning and Coordination Department for absorption of the opposite party as a Junior Stenographer in that Department in consultation with the Revenue Department. When this Original Application was pending consideration, the services of the opposite party were terminated and therefore, this case was tagged to O.A. No.204 of 2001, which was filed challenging the order of termination. The other O.A. No.229 of 2006 was filed when the opposite party was asked to vacate the quarter under his occupation. In O.A. No.204 of 2001, it was contended by the opposite party that he had been appointed against a regular vacancy and was later on regularised in the said post. While working as such, after creation of the post of Senior Stenographer, he was asked to discharge the duties of Senior Stenographer but he was receiving the pay of Junior Stenographer. While working as such, after creation of the post of Senior Stenographer, he was asked to discharge the duties of Senior Stenographer but he was receiving the pay of Junior Stenographer. According to the opposite party, if the Department did not want him to continue as Junior Stenographer, he could have been allowed to continue as a Senior Stenographer and the order of termination without any notice is illegal. 3. The present petitioners filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the opposite party had been appointed in the year 1986 in violation of the Rules which were in force from 1982. It was also contended before the Tribunal by the petition¬ers that the opposite party had been appointed illegally without undergoing a recruitment test and therefore, such illegal ap¬pointment had to be recalled by way of termination. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the post of Junior Stenogra¬pher held by the opposite party was abolished while he was work¬ing as a Senior Stenographer and therefore, in absence of a post, he could not have been allowed to continue as a Junior Stenogra¬pher. The Tribunal on consideration of these three grounds taken by the present petitioners did not find any merit therein and allowed the Original Application directing reinstatement of the opposite party in a similar post within a specified time. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate assailing the impugned judgment submitted before the Court that the oppo¬site party was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 26.5.1986 for 89 days in the post of Junior Stenographer created by Planning and Coordination Department vide order dated 10.10.1979 in the District Planning Unit, Kandhamal. He was subsequently given regular appointment in the said post vide order dated 15.7.1986. When a post of Senior Stenographer was created in lieu of the post of Junior Stenographer vide order dated 30.10.1989, without considering adjustment of persons working in the Department, the opposite party who was working in the post created by Planning and Coordination Department was allowed to officiate as Senior Stenographer. The appointment of the opposite party as Junior Stenographer was not through a process of recruitment as required for a Revenue Cadre post and therefore, his appointment to the post of Junior Stenographer was irregular. The appointment of the opposite party as Junior Stenographer was not through a process of recruitment as required for a Revenue Cadre post and therefore, his appointment to the post of Junior Stenographer was irregular. On abolition of the post of Junior Stenographer, the opposite party could have been appointed as such in the Revenue cadre subject to passing of the recruitment test in terms of the Orissa District & Subordinate Offices Stenographer Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982. But he did not appear in the recruitment examination held in the year 1996. Since the opposite party did not appear in the recruitment exami¬nation for being included in the Revenue cadre, the post of Junior Stenographer in the District Planning Section, Kandhamal having been abolished, his services had to be terminated. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the State that the appointment of opposite party not being through a recruitment test, such appointment is illegal and therefore, rightly terminated. Sri Pattanayak, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party had been appointed as a Junior Stenographer through a formal recruitment test and he had been regularised in service in the year 1986 against a sanctioned post. His services having been regularized against a sanctioned post, the question of appearing in another recruitment test for being included in the Revenue cadre does not arise and therefore, the opposite party could have been on reversion from the post of Senior Stenographer adjusted against the post of Junior Stenogra¬pher in the Revenue cadre or some other District office. 5. We have carefully gone through the documents filed before the Tribunal which also form part of this writ applica¬tion. Annexure-2 is the order of appointment and it appears that the opposite party was appointed as a Junior Stenographer of District Planning Unit, Phulbani and ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days and he had been adjusted as such against the post created vide G.O. No.17962/P dated 10.10.1979. Annexure-3 is the office order dated 15.7.1986 in which the opposite party was appointed as a regular Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit, Phulbani w.e.f. 10.7.1986. However, such appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedent and such other for¬malities like passing of any test. Annexure-3 is the office order dated 15.7.1986 in which the opposite party was appointed as a regular Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit, Phulbani w.e.f. 10.7.1986. However, such appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedent and such other for¬malities like passing of any test. After being regularised in the post, the opposite party continued as such till the order in Annexure-5 was passed asking him to work against the post of Senior Stenographer created vide order dated 30.10.1989 till recruitment of Junior Stenographer as per the 1982 Rules. It was also stated in the said order that he shall not be entitled for any pay attached to the post of Senior Stenographer and in the event he comes out successful in the recruitment test, he would be absorbed in the Revenue cadre of the Collectorate in the dis¬trict of Phulbani. It was further stated that if he fails in the recruitment examination of Stenographers, he shall be retrenched from service. While continuing in the post of Senior Stenogra¬pher, the impugned order in Annexure-7 was passed on 31.1.2001 terminating his services. On perusal of these documents as well as the record produced before us, we find that the following are not in dispute. The opposite party was initially appointed as a Junior Stenographer on 89 days basis in May 1986 and was regular¬ly absorbed as a Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit, Phulbani w.e.f. 10.7.1986 against a sanctioned post of Junior Stenographer. It was contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the appointment of opposite party as a Junior Stenographer was not through a recruitment process. From the record produced before us, we find that the District Planning Officer, Kandhamal had written a letter to the Establishment Officer, Collectorate, Kandhamal on 20.7.2009 wherein it was indicated that the opposite party was appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the District Planning Office through a formal recruitment but not through the recruitment required to be done under 1982 Rules. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the opposite party had been given an appointment without a recruit¬ment test. From the said letter, it appears that there was a recruitment test though formal in nature before the opposite party was appointed to the post of Junior Stenographer. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the opposite party had been given an appointment without a recruit¬ment test. From the said letter, it appears that there was a recruitment test though formal in nature before the opposite party was appointed to the post of Junior Stenographer. Moreover, he was regularised in the post of Junior Stenographer w.e.f. 10.7.1986 by order dated 15.7.1986 against a sanctioned post of Junior Stenographer. Having regularized the service of the oppo¬site party in the said post and having allowed him to continue as such till 30.1.2001, the Department could not have been insisted for passing of the recruitment test. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the initial appointment was irregular is considered, the services of the opposite party have been regularized in 1986 against a sanctioned post and he having continued in the said post for about five years, the Department should not have insisted upon passing of the recruit¬ment test as provided in the 1982 Rules and the Tribunal was justified in holding as such. The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the State is with regard to abolition of the post of Junior Stenographer. Undisputedly when the opposite party was discharging the work of Senior Stenographer against a sanc¬tioned post of Senior Stenographer, the post of Junior Stenogra¬pher was abolished. It is not understood as to how the post was abolished when the opposite party was getting the pay of Junior Stenographer but was discharging the duties of the Senior Stenog¬rapher. While abolishing the post, some orders should have been passed with regard to the services of the opposite party. There¬fore, allowing the opposite party to work in the post of Senior Stenographer with the pay of Junior Stenographer and abolishing the post of Junior Stenographer, the State authorities should not have come out with a plea that the post of Junior Stenographer having been abolished, there was no other post in which the opposite party could be adjusted. If passing of the recruitment test as per 1982 Rules was a requirement for the purpose of appointment as a Junior Stenographer in the Revenue cadre, the opposite party could have been adjusted in any other District Planning Office as a Junior Stenographer, his services having been regularised as such w.e.f. July, 1986. If passing of the recruitment test as per 1982 Rules was a requirement for the purpose of appointment as a Junior Stenographer in the Revenue cadre, the opposite party could have been adjusted in any other District Planning Office as a Junior Stenographer, his services having been regularised as such w.e.f. July, 1986. The Tribunal was therefore justified in directing the petitioners to adjust the opposite party in some other Department he having served the Department as a regular Junior Stenographer for about five years. 6. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any com¬pelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application dismissed.