JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. Both the writ applications involve similar issue and relief claimed is also same. Therefore, on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the cases were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of in this common judgment. The Autonomous District Council, Chandel published a Notification on 30.10.2013 for filling up of 125 number of Chawkidar, Peon posts on contract basis for the schools under control of the said Autonomous District Council. The last date for submission of applications was 12.11.2013 and the date of Interview was fixed to 18, 19 and 20th November, 2013. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the matter of public employment, opportunity should be given to each individual qualified to hold the post and the same cannot be confined to residents of District Chandel only. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the advertisement inviting applications was not given wide publicity as a result of which several persons qualified for such appointment could not apply and were deprived of such appointment. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that the Autonomous District Council of Chandel had published the Notification in two widely circulated English newspapers such as "Sangai Express" and "Huiyen Lanpao" and therefore it cannot be said that proper advertisement had not been issued calling for applications for appointment to the said posts. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the entire purpose of publishing advertisement in two widely circulated English newspapers is to invite applications from all the Districts and the advertisement nowhere indicates that only the residents of Chandel District could apply for the posts. Though the petitioners were aware of the advertisement, they did not submit their applications in time and have filed these two writ applications on various grounds to stall the recruitment process. 4. On perusal of the advertisement, it is found that the applicants were directed to submit their applications by 3 P.M. of 12.11.2013 in the Employment Exchange office, Chandel. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that if the advertisement was for the purpose of inviting applications from residents of the State of Manipur and it was not confined to District of Chandel, there was no necessity to direct the applicants to submit their applications in the Employment Exchange office in the district of Chandel. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that if the advertisement was for the purpose of inviting applications from residents of the State of Manipur and it was not confined to District of Chandel, there was no necessity to direct the applicants to submit their applications in the Employment Exchange office in the district of Chandel. 5. I am not in a position to accept the above contention considering the fact that applications are to be received at one place and it could be also the office of the Autonomous District Council, Chandel. If, for some reasons, the Autonomous District Council thought it proper to receive the applications through Employment Exchange office at Chandel, there cannot be illegality in the same. The apprehension of the petitioners that their applications received by the Employment Exchange in the district of Chandel would be treated as fresh applications for registration and their names may not be sent for consideration is based on no material. Admittedly, all the petitioners are already registered in different Employment Exchange Offices. The advertisement itself only shows that the Employment Exchange Office in the district of Chandel is the place where the applications are to be received and there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time the Autonomous District Council, Chandel had instructed the Employment Exchange office, Chandel to register the new applications and recommend names for the purpose of appearing in the Interview. Had the petitioners submitted their applications in time, that could have been forwarded to the office of the Autonomous District Council, Chandel for processing. Apart from the above, it is also found that the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 does not apply to certain categories of post. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the Act shall not apply in relation to vacancies in any employment to do an unskilled work. The term ’unskilled office work’ has been defined in Section 2(i) and the posts of Orderly, Jamadar, Peon, Watchman, Sweeper come within the above definition. Therefore, for the purpose of appointment to these posts, the said Act has no application and in the present case the posts advertised is the post of Chawkidar which is similar to Watchman/Sweeper. 6. The term ’unskilled office work’ has been defined in Section 2(i) and the posts of Orderly, Jamadar, Peon, Watchman, Sweeper come within the above definition. Therefore, for the purpose of appointment to these posts, the said Act has no application and in the present case the posts advertised is the post of Chawkidar which is similar to Watchman/Sweeper. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Another vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 and relying on the said decision it was contended that in the matter of public employment, proper advertisement should be made by publication in the newspaper, broad-casting in the electronic media. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioners do not dispute that the advertisement had been published inviting applications in two widely circulated English newspapers and in fact they had knowledge of the said advertisement. The entire purpose of advertising through print and electronic media is to bring such advertisement to the notice of large sections of the public enabling them to apply for appointment. Since the petitioners were aware of the advertisement and did not apply in time, now they cannot make a grievance that the advertisement had not been properly made. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the impugned advertisement. Both the writ applications, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.