Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 480 (ORI)

Sarada Prasad Mahanti v. State of Orissa

2012-10-19

B.N.MAHAPATRA, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2012
JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. : The petitioner who claims to be a public spirited person and is a practicing advocate has filed the Public Interest Litigation petition challenging the illegal and arbitrary squandering of the public money and allowing the persons i.e. opp.Parties 5 to 376 to occupy public office working in different posts in the State Government Service urging various facts and legal contentions with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the appointment of reserve candidates against unreserved post beyond 50% and the appointment of the opp.Parties in Class-I posts with basic pay of Rs.15,600/- who were selected for Class-II with the basic pay of Rs.6,500/- and Rs.5,500/- appointed as Class-II with Rs.9,300/- with further direction to opp.party No.2 to recover the public money from the said opp.parties-officers by fixing responsibility for having flouted the law and to pass such other order to meet the ends of justice. 2.The brief facts are stated below for the purpose of appreciating the rival, factual and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Odisha in General Administration Department (for short, G.A. Deptt”) made requisition for the seven categories of posts in Class-II cadre and in the Specially Declared Gazetted cadre. Accordingly, the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short, “OPSC”) issued advertisement No.8 of 2006-07 for 5 categories of Class-II posts and 2 categories of Class-II posts were notified with the scales of pay of Rs.6,500/- and Rs.5,500/- in respect of the vacancies in different categories. The OPSC conducted the Orissa Civil Service Examination-2006 as per the Orissa (Amendment) Civil Service Rules, 1991 which consists preliminary examination for general scrutiny and the main examination consisting of main written and viva voce. 4.The OPSC conducted preliminary examination by making reservation, which is violative of Rules, 1991 and contrary to the Apex Court judgment. The reservation was made in preliminary examination as well as in main examination. The viva voce test was conducted by two sets of Boards, the 1st Board consisting of two members and the 2nd Board consisting of three members, which is impermissible in law. The OPSC violating the norms of the advertisement and flouting the reservation policy recommended 380 candidates, which action of the OPSC is illegal and arbitrary. The viva voce test was conducted by two sets of Boards, the 1st Board consisting of two members and the 2nd Board consisting of three members, which is impermissible in law. The OPSC violating the norms of the advertisement and flouting the reservation policy recommended 380 candidates, which action of the OPSC is illegal and arbitrary. 5.It is stated that the selection/recruitment/appointment is under challenge in the O.A.T., Cuttack in O.A. No.1731(C)/2010 and other cases. 6.Further, it is stated that on the requisition of the G.A. Deptt. the OPSC recommended names of the 380 candidates in Class-II and Specially Declared Gazetted cadres with different scales of pay. The scale of pay for Class-II post is Rs.6,500/- and scale of pay for Specially Declared Gazetted post is Rs.5,500/-. In the 6th Pay Commission the scale of Class-II post with Rs.6,500/- is revised to Rs.9,300/-. Therefore, the Class-II post advertised was with the basic pay of Rs.6,500/- but not Rs.8,000/-. The OPSC notified for selection of candidates for Class-II as per the requisition made by opp.Party No.2. 7.It is stated that the G.A. Deptt. issued press note on 11.8.2010 and appointed some candidates in Class-I cadre with the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/- revising from Rs.6,500/- and some candidates in Class-II cadre with the scale of pay revising from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.9,300/- and some candidates in Specially Declared Gazetted cadre with the scale of pay revising from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.9,300/-. 8.Further, the case of the petitioner is that the reserve candidates selected in the preliminary as well as main examinations with grace marks and relaxation cannot be appointed against unreserved vacancies, which is illegal, arbitrary and loss of public money and debarred the meritorious candidates from the said posts. According to the petitioner, 34 reserved candidates, who have been appointed most illegally in unreserved vacancies, have caused great loss to the public exchequer, which action of opp.party No.2 is illegal and arbitrary. Reservation in the posts advertised either for Class-I or Class-II is maximum 50% according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 . The selection/appointment as per the advertisement made by the OPSC would clearly establish that more than 50% reserve candidates have been appointed illegally, who were selected in the preliminary as well as main examination. The selection/appointment as per the advertisement made by the OPSC would clearly establish that more than 50% reserve candidates have been appointed illegally, who were selected in the preliminary as well as main examination. 9.Further, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mohapatra that the initial appointment posts, which were notified, could not have been upgraded by the State Government as the same is contrary to the Civil Service Recruitment Rules and the Law on this aspect. 10.It is further stated that the selection of the candidates is made by the OPSC for Class-II. The selected candidates cannot be appointed in Class-I posts with retrospective effect. The posts of Class-I could not have been filled up unless they are specially notified in the advertisement inviting application to the vacant posts. Press Note issued by the G.A. Deptt. overrides the statutory provisions and further 34 reserved candidates who have been posted in unreserved posts is illegal, which action of it is illegal and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law. 11.It is stated that the OPSC has communicated the selection list to the State Government as per the communication dated 11.6.2010 as per the advertisement No.8 of 2006-07. The requisition to fill up the posts was for Class-II and the notification issued by the OPSC was for Class-II with the basic pays referred to supra., but the appointment was made by opp.party No.2 to Class-I and Class-II posts with different scales of pay than the scales of pay notified. The same has caused loss to the public exchequer and the same is opposed to law. Hence, the selection of such candidates in Class-I and Class-II posts with the different scales of pay is liable to be quashed by this Court. 12.Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors-opp.party Nos.376 and 377 also supports the case of the petitioner. Hence, the selection of such candidates in Class-I and Class-II posts with the different scales of pay is liable to be quashed by this Court. 12.Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors-opp.party Nos.376 and 377 also supports the case of the petitioner. 13.The writ petition is opposed by opp.parties 1 and 2 by filing counter statements sworn to by Kishore Chandra Mishra, S/o. Muralidhar Mishra, at present working as Deputy Secretary to Government of Odisha, General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar, traveersing the petition adverments and denying the averments made in the writ petition and justifying the selection of candidates to the posts of Class-I and Class-II with the pay scales and appointment of the opp.parties 5 to 376 is in accordance with the policy of the State Government and in accordance with law observing the principle of reservation. Preliminary objection is raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the PIL in respect of public employment is not maintainable in law. 14.Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate in support of the aforesaid contention has placed reliance upon Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and contended that the aggrieved persons have to approach the State Administrative Tribunal. He further contended that the selection/recruitment/appointment of successful candidates pursuant to the advertisement No.08 of 2006-07 (Annexure-1) is under challenge in O.A. No.1731(C)/2010 and in other similar cases before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, which is established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said matter is pending before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. Opp.parties herein are the opp.parties in the aforesaid case and the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the applicant in the said O.A. are one and the same. Therefore, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 . He also contended that for the self-same subject matter as well as for the self-same relief, two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 . He also contended that for the self-same subject matter as well as for the self-same relief, two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon the following decisions: (2004) 6 SCC 362 (Rajureshwar Associates v. State of Maharashtra and other Par-36); AIR 2004 SC 187 (Air India Cabin Crew Association v. Yeshhawinee Merchant and others - Paras-74 and 74); (2009) 7 SCC 314 (Santosh Sood v. Gajendra Singh and others-Paras-17 to 20); and (2010) 13 SCC 735 (Synthetic Fibre Industries v. Appollo Tyres Limited and others). 15.Further, Mr. Mohapatra contended that there is no credence on the alleged PIL because the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (for short, “the PIL Rules, 2010). Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. Pleadings in this regard are absent and not in consonance with the legal requirements and there is no application for waiver of requirement of Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court PIL Rules, 2010. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balabanta Singh, AIR 2010 SC 2550 , and in the case of Niranjan Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 2012 (I) ILR (Cut) 206. 16.Further, learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner has not prayed for issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto. In the absence of any prayer for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto, no Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued. Similarly, no case has been made out by the petitioner for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto against opp.parties officers. As there is no pleading as well as no factual foundation in the writ petition, rejoinder filed by the petitioner cannot be treated as part of the writ petition and any pleading therein by the petitioner is an afterthought and is made at the belated stage. In support of said contention, Mr. Mohapatra placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodor Prasadar Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 . In support of said contention, Mr. Mohapatra placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodor Prasadar Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 . 17.On merit of the case, it si contended that there was specific reservation for different categories. It is very natural that it will be applied for both such examinations, i.e. preliminary and main examinations. 18.With reference to the averments made in paragraph-11of the writ petition, it is stated that the OPSC had recommended 378 candidates by observing the principle of reservation, which is not as averred by the petitioner. 19.With reference to the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, it is stated that at the time of final selection of candidates it is very natural that candidates belonging to reserved categories can come under the UR Category on the basis of their better performance. The word “unreserved” means it is open for all categories. 20.Insofar as the averments made at paragraph-17 of the writ petition is concerned, it is contended that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can come under the unreserved category on the basis of their performance, since the posts meant for unreserved category are not reserved for any category and open for all categories. 21.With reference to the averments made in paragraph-18 of the writ petition, it is stated that so far as crossing the maximum limit of 50% in reservation is concerned the erstwhile Welfare Department, Government of Odisha in their resolution dated 8.12.1994 provided that reservation for the candidates belonging to SC & ST and SEBC in the services shall be 16.25%, 22,50% and 27% respectively thereby making it to 65.75%, while the reservation limit is 50% in law. It was necessary for the State to enhance the percentage of reservation of SEBC candidates to 65.75%. In terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, State is empowered to identify and recognize the compelling interest of various sections of the society. It is thus contended that Article 14 of the Constitution is to be read meaning thereby that this Article seeks to validate equalizing measures that are taken by the State Government. The percentage of reservation that is provided to SEBC category is in conformity not only with Article 16(4) of the Constitution, but also the law as declared by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney’s cases referred to supra. The percentage of reservation that is provided to SEBC category is in conformity not only with Article 16(4) of the Constitution, but also the law as declared by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney’s cases referred to supra. The population of SEBC in the State is about 52% of the total population and the backwardness of the State in different indicators of development inter alia include (a) low per capita income, (b) inadequate communication network particularly in the rural areas, (c) low industrial growth, (d) mostly subsistence level of agriculture, (e) lack of irrigation facilities, (f) low literacy level (g) low electrification, low urbanization, and (h) high percentage of people living below the poverty line. 22.It is stated that following the aforesaid criteria, the Legislature of the State has enacted the Act that intends to provide 27% reservation for SEBC. The Gazette Notification of the enactment was issued on 7.2.2009 and hence, the Act has come into force from that date. State Cabinet in their 35th Meeting held on 29.12.2007 has decided to request the Central Government to include the Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India through an amendment of the Constitution. The Act has not been challenged in any Court of Law and the High Court was justified to hold that the same is in vogue. The non-inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule is of no consequence since the Act is validly enacted and request has been made to the centre to get the same included in the Ninth Schedule. 23.Further, it is stated that advertisement for O.C.S. Examination-2006 was published on 3.10.2006 in which 27% reservation was mentioned for SEBC category as per the erstwhile Welfare Department Resolution No.35758 dated 8.12.1994. 24.Further, it is sought to justify that as per the direction of the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2006 in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2002 (M. Nagraj and others v. Union of India), State Government decided to limit the reservation to 50% in O.C.S. Examination-2006 and limited the SEBC reservation to 11.25% vide Minorities and Backward Welfare Department Resolution No.2279/dated 17.1.2008. The vacancies were recast so as to limit the reservation for SEBC to 11.25% and limit over all reservation of posts up to 50%. The Orissa Act 6 of 2005 was published on official Gazette on 7.2.2009 with reservation of SEBC to 27% with effect from 8.12.1994. The vacancies were recast so as to limit the reservation for SEBC to 11.25% and limit over all reservation of posts up to 50%. The Orissa Act 6 of 2005 was published on official Gazette on 7.2.2009 with reservation of SEBC to 27% with effect from 8.12.1994. 25.Further, it is stated that the posts, which were initially notified in the advertisement have been upgraded after restructuring of OAS cadre published vide G.A. Department Resolution No.5719/Gen. dated 28.2.2009. 26.Further, it is stated that Press Note has not overridden the statutory mandates. Only the changes made have been communicated to the concerned candidates in form of Press Note and they have been given scope to exercise their option afresh indicating the post they prefer to accept. Accordingly, the selection has been made taking into their performance and position in the OPSC merit list and their options. Hence, 34 reserved candidates have not been posted illegally in unreserved posts. 27.It is further stated that initial appointment to posts was made on basis of the merit and option exercised by the candidates. Hence, neither any Rule of Law has been violated nor has there been any monetary loss to the State. These allegations made in the writ petition are completely imaginary and hence disputed and denied as wholly incorrect. 28.It has been stated that the candidates were appointed on the basis of the existing provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Hence, the action of the opposite parties is not violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as contended by the petitioner’s counsel. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 29.Preliminary counter affidavit on behalf of some of the opposite party-appointees has been filed by Sri Anil Kumar Purohit, S/o. Rajendra Purohit raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the similar grounds as urged on behalf of opp.parties 1 and 2. 30.Further, it is stated in the said affidavit that the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can only be invoked if there is violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen of India. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equal opportunity in matters relating to public employment. 30.Further, it is stated in the said affidavit that the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can only be invoked if there is violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen of India. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equal opportunity in matters relating to public employment. The petitioner being neither an applicant for the post, which was advertised, nor an intending employment seeker in the said stream, cannot ventilate his grievance against the action of the Government authorities. The petitioner being not an aggrieved person as per the dictum of the Apex Court cannot at all vouchsafe the cause of the persons who are sitting at the fence. Hence, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition and further placing strong reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opp.parties 1 and 2 learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 31.Rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by opp.parties 1 and 2 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated therein that the Government of Orissa in G.A. Deptt. on 18.4.2006 issued requisition for filling up of 380 different posts. As per advertisement No.8/2006-2007 dated 11.8.2006 the preliminary examination was held at 11.5.2007. The new rule came into force with effect from 28.2.2009 as admitted by the opp.parties in their counter affidavit at para-14, but contention urged at para-19 of the write petition was not explained though contents of paragraphs-13 to 16 have been admitted, which reveals the new rule came to force with effect from 28.2.2009. The resolution dated 25.6.2009 vide Annexure-6 reveals that the existing OAS-II Cadre stands abolished and the constitution of Odisha Revenue Service got approval in the Cabinet’s 46th Meeting dated 27.3.2009 and the notification dated 30.6.2010 was issued vide Annexure-7 for Class-I cadre with pay scale of Rs.15,600/- with grade pay Rs.5,400/-. 32.Further, it is stated that in view of Annexures-1, 4, 5, 6, 7 the main examination dated 22.6.2009 and viva voce test dated 15.2.2010 to 21.5.2010 and recommendation dated 11.6.2010 by the OPSC and appointment on 30.9.2010 vide Annexure-7 are alleged as void because there was no advertisement for Jr. Class-I and Class-II posts as upgraded by the Cabinet decision dated 27.2.2009 and the new rules came on 28.2.2009 and resolution dated 25.5.2009 vide Annexure-6 abolished the OAS-II cadre. Class-I and Class-II posts as upgraded by the Cabinet decision dated 27.2.2009 and the new rules came on 28.2.2009 and resolution dated 25.5.2009 vide Annexure-6 abolished the OAS-II cadre. Therefore, the rule of law and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are openly violated. The State has been incurring loss for each candidate as their entry to service is illegal, void and non-existent in the eye of law. The entire money should be recovered from the erring officers. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to remove the persons who got illegal appointment. 33.On the basis of the rival, factual and legal contentions urged with regard to the preliminary objection filed on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and other related aspects the following points would arise for our consideration. (i)Whether the writ petition in relation to service matter in the nature of public interest litigation petition is maintainable ? (ii)Whether this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation for judicial review can be entertained in respect of the self-same subject matter and seeking for self-same relief as sought for in O.A. No.1731 (C) of 2010 pending before State Administrative Tribunal ? (iii)Whether non-compliance of Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 in the absence of prayer seeking waiver in view of the urgency of the matter, the writ application can be entertained ? (iv)Whether in the absence of prayer a writ of Quo Warranto, can be issued ? (v)Whether the writ petition against re-classification/restructuring of the cadre as a policy decision by the State Government can be entertained by this Court in exercise of its judicial review power ? (vi)What order ? 34.Point Nos.(i) to (v) are interrelated and they are answered together against the petitioner by assigning the following reasons. 35.Learned Government Advocate Mr. R.K. Mohapatra invited our attention that the pleadings and grounds urged in the writ petition as well as in the application filed before the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “SAT”) are one and the same. He submitted that in service matters PIL petition is not maintainable. The said submission is supported by learned Senior counsel Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of opp.Party Nos.76, 80, 106 and 168. The same stand is also taken by other learned Senior Counsel Mr. He submitted that in service matters PIL petition is not maintainable. The said submission is supported by learned Senior counsel Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of opp.Party Nos.76, 80, 106 and 168. The same stand is also taken by other learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dora on behalf of some of the opp.parties officers. Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel, learned counsel Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. A.K. Mishra in support of the said contention placed reliance upon the following decisions: AIR 1999 SC 114 (Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others); AIR 2005 SC 540 (Dattaraj Nithuji Thawari v. State of Maharashtra and others); (2010) 10 SCC 707 (Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others); and AIR 2007 SC 758 (Neetu v. State of Punjab and others). Further, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pattnaik and learned Govt. Advocate Mr. R.K. Mohapatra submitted that the counsel in appearing in the Original Application and in the writ petition on behalf of the applicant and the petitioner are one and the same and the facts and grounds except certain paragraphs are also one and the same. Therefore, they contended that the PIL petition is filed for the benefit of the unsuccessful candidates who are the applicants before the SAT in the aforesaid Original Application. Therefore, PIL petition is not maintainable as held by the Supreme Court in the cases reported in 2011 5 SCC 484 (P. Seshadri v. S Mangati Gopal Reddy and others) and JT 2004 (3) SC 127 (Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others). 36.After carefully going through the pleadings it appears that pendency of the Original Application is undisputedly in relation to the selection of candidates to the cadre of Class-I and Class-II in various departments of the State Government of Odisha in which selection process was conducted and candidates were selected on the basis of the Recruitment Rules, 1978 and OPSC Rules, 1971 framed in exercise of powers under Article 309. Undisputedly the Original Application is pending before the SAT in respect of the self-same relief. Undisputedly the Original Application is pending before the SAT in respect of the self-same relief. Therefore, we have to accept the legal contentions urged on behalf of the State and the other contesting opp.parties that the writ petition is not maintainable as their contentions is well founded and supported by the series of decisions referred to supra upon which they have rightly placed reliance and we have to answer that the writ petition in the nature of PIL filed by the petitioner is for the benefit of the parties who are the applicants in the aforesaid Original Application pending before the SAT. Hence, we have to answer the first point against the petitioner holding that PIL petition in relation to the service matter is not maintainable. 37.Insofar as the second point is concerned, the same is required be answered against the petitioner as the learned Government. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate the pleadings in the writ petition and the pleadings in the Original Application filed by the unsuccessful candidates under the provisions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are the same, which is filed in respect of the self-same subject matter seeking for self-same relief. The petitioner is represented by the same lawyer who is appearing in the Original Application in the SAT as well as in the present writ petition. It, therefore, revels that there are two proceedings for the self-same subject matter and self-same relief, which amounts to two parallel proceedings for the self-same subject matter and self-same relief, which cannot be allowed to continue. This position of law is well settled by a catena decisions of the Supreme Court upon which learned Government Advocate very aptly placed reliance in support of his contention. One of them is the case of Association of Synthetic Fibre Industries v. Appollo Tyres Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 735 , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows : “We are also prima facie of the opinion that simultaneous invoking of the two jurisdictions, one the statutory appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is not justified. Inasmuch a statutory appeal is already pending, Respondent No.1, who was the petitioner in the High Court, can also make appearance before the appellate authority. Inasmuch a statutory appeal is already pending, Respondent No.1, who was the petitioner in the High Court, can also make appearance before the appellate authority. It is stated at this stage by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 before us that it has also filed its statutory appeal before CESTAT accompanied by an application for stay.” 38.From a careful reading of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that in respect of the self-same subject seeking for self-same relief in the writ petition in the nature of a PIL as well as the O.A. amounts to two parellel proceedings initiated by the petitioner, which obviously may be at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates in the selection process. It is clear from the pleadings made in this petition and the pleadings made in the original Application and the lawyer engaged in the both the proceedings are one and the same. We have, therefore, to accept the contentions of the State Government and contesting opp.parties that the two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the second point is answered against the petitioner. 39.On the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balabanta Singh Chaupal, AIR 2010 SC 2550 , this Court has framed the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. This aspect of the matter was extensively dealt with the Niranjan Tripathy’s case referred to supra, wherein it is held that Rule 8 of the PIL Rules must be complied with. In the instant case also the mandatory provisions of the Orissa High Court PIL Rules, 2010 has not been complied with. Pleading in this regard is also absent and not in consonance with the legal requirements and there is no application for requirement of waiver of Rule 8 of the PIL Rules, 2010. Therefore, in view of the decision rendered in Niranjan Tripathy’s case referred to supra, point No.(iii) is required to be answered against the petitioner, which is accordingly answered. 40.Point No.(iv) whether a writ of Quo Warranto in absence of prayer can be issued is also required to be answered against the petitioner for the following reasons. Therefore, in view of the decision rendered in Niranjan Tripathy’s case referred to supra, point No.(iii) is required to be answered against the petitioner, which is accordingly answered. 40.Point No.(iv) whether a writ of Quo Warranto in absence of prayer can be issued is also required to be answered against the petitioner for the following reasons. Learned Government Advocate has rightly pointed out from the pleadings that since there is no foundation laid down in the writ petition, the pleadings in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner after the statements of counter were filed by the State and other contesting opp.parties should be treated as after thought and cannot be treated as pleadings. Therefore, point no.(iv) is also answered against the petitioner. 41.Learned Government Advocate further submitted that in exceptional case a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasada Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 . 42.Point Nos.(v) is in relation to the merits of the case. We are not examining the said point for the reason that point Nos.(i) and (ii) are already answered in favour of the State and the contesting opp.parties as we are declined to entertain the writ petition for the reason that the PIL in respect of the service matter is not maintainable and parallel proceedings in respect of the self-same subject matter and self-same relief on the question of selection and appointment of officers to Class-I and Class-II after re-structuring the different cadres is pending before the SAT and Rule 8 of the PIL Rules is not complied with and a case for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto is not made out. We hope, the points framed by us should be taken into consideration by the SAT in the properly constituted application pending before it. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed on the question of the maintainability and other related issues discussed above. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.I agree. Petition dismissed.