JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 dated 28.9.2006 in the daily English Newspaper, he offered his candidature for the post of Multi purpose Assistance (Gram Rojgar Sevak) in respect of Solabandh Gram Panchayat under Patnagarh Block. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for the said post was 10+2 passed. It was further stated therein that the applicants of Commerce stream and applicants with computer proficiency of ‘O’ level with use of Oriya language in computer would be preferred. The petitioner has passed +2 Arts in C.H.S.E. Examination in the year 2002 having secured 46.89 marks. He completed 12 months’ course in Diploma in Computer Application. But instead of select¬ing him one Bidyadhar Majhi, who was ineligible for the post, was selected. 2. Being aggrieved with the said selection, petitioner made a representation to the Project Director D.R.D.A., Bolangir (Opposite party No.3), but it was not attended. So, he filed W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 27.1.2007 with direction to finalize the representation within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Instead of considering the case of petitioner, opposite party No.3 gave appointment to Sarat Kumar Das (opposite party No.5), under Annexure-1 though he had no requisite qualification for the post. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to quash Annexure-1 and to direct the opp.parties to recommend his name for the post of Gram Rogzar Sevak in respect of Solabandh Grama panchayat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5 contended that opposite party No.5 passed Upasastri from Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, Puri which is equivalent to +2. He secured 51.1. percentage of mark therein. None of the other applicants could secure that much of marks. Opposite party No.3 by his letter dated 14.11.2006 made it clear that ‘O’ level certificate issued by Govt. of India would be considered and no other certificates like D.C.A. and P.G.D.C.A. Since none of the candidates could produce ‘O’ level certificate being issued by the Govt. of India, qualification with regard to computer was not taken into consideration in favour of any of them. Opposite party No.5 having secured the highest mark in +2 level was rightly selected. 4. of India, qualification with regard to computer was not taken into consideration in favour of any of them. Opposite party No.5 having secured the highest mark in +2 level was rightly selected. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement, the minimum qualifica¬tion for the post was 10+2. There was nothing to show that candi¬date having equivalent qualification of 10+2 would be also eligi¬ble to the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak. He further submitted that as per the advertisement the last date of submission of applica¬tion was 28.10.2006. At that time the Equivalence Committee had not declared Upasastri as equivalent to 10+2 pass. Annexure D/5, shows that opposite party No.5 passed Upasastri in the month of August 2001 from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya. But, there is nothing to indicate that the Equivalence Committee de¬clared Upasastri equivalent to 10+2 pass prior to 28.10.2006.. So, Opposite party No.5 cannot be said to have passed 10+2 or any equivalent examination thereof till 28.10.2006, and, as such, he was not eligible for the post at all. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 submitted that the Equivalence Committee vide notification dated 3.5.1996 declared Acharya as equivalent to M.A. in Sanskrit. Opposite party No.5 passed Acharya in the year 2006 and was placed in 1st class. M.A. in Sanskrit being much higher than 10+2, his appointment cannot be declared illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that opposite party No.5 also under¬went 12 month’s course in specified curriculum with Grade B+2 and passed PGDCA from Patnagarh and was issued with a certificate in that respect under Annexure-B/5. If the qualification of the petitioner in respect of computer application is accepted, the qualification of opposite No.5 in that respect cannot be ignored. According to him since opposite party No.5 secured more marks than the petitioner, he was rightly selected. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.13 of 2008 held that until the Equivalence Committee declared that Upasastri was equivalent to 10+2, it could not be held that a candidate, passing Upasastri would be treated to have passed 10+2. According to him since opposite party No.5 secured more marks than the petitioner, he was rightly selected. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.13 of 2008 held that until the Equivalence Committee declared that Upasastri was equivalent to 10+2, it could not be held that a candidate, passing Upasastri would be treated to have passed 10+2. So, even if such a candidate passed Acharya and it was declared by the Equivalence Committee to be equivalent with M.A. in Sanskrit earlier than the last date fixed for submission of application, it cannot help him to get a job meant for 10+2 pass candidate. 7. On perusal of Annexure B/5 it is found that opposite party No.5 obtained PGDCA certificate in computer on 10th day of November, 2006-after the last date fixed for submission of appli¬cation for the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak. So his qualification under Annexure B/5 cannot be taken into consideration. 8. Moreover, since the minimum qualification fixed in the advertisement was 10+2 and there was nothing to show that candi¬dates having equivalent qualification thereof were also eligible to apply for the post, opp.party No.5 was not eligible to hold that post. The petitioner being a 10+2 pass candidate having qualification in computer application should have been preferred. Submission of learned counsel for opposite party No.5 that it was notified that ‘O’ level certificate issued by Govt. of India would only be given preference, cannot be accepted since the same is contrary to the advertisement, particularly when there is nothing to show that there was a corrigendum to that effect. 9. Furthermore, in writ petition No.16809 of 2006 this Court held as follows : “In our considered opinion, as the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Project Director, D.R.D.A. Bolangir-O.P. No.3, it would be appropriate if opposite party No.3 takes a decision on the grievance of the petitioner. Let the petitioner appear before the Project Director, D.R.D.A.-O.P. No.3 along with a copy of this order. Opposite party No.3 is directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as opposite party No.5-Bidyadhar Majhi, whose name is stated to have been recommended for such appointment. The entire exercise shall be completed with a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.” 10. The entire exercise shall be completed with a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.” 10. Thus, it was specifically directed to the Project Director, D.R.D.A. to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as opposite party No.5, Bidyadhar Majhi, instead, as it appears, he gave opportunity of hearing to the present opposite party No.5, Sarat Kumar Das also, which is against the direction of this Court. 11. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, opposite party No.5 be removed from service and in his place the petitioner shall be given appointment to the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak in respect of Solabandh Grama Panchayat on due compliance of all formalities. Petition allowed.