JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - W.P. (C) No. 11307 of 2016 has been filed by the State functionaries challenging the common order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1510 of 2012 along with eight Original Applications i.e. O.A. No. 1644 of 2012, O.A. No. 2443 of 2013, O.A. No. 3341 of 2013, O.A. No. 3342 of 2013, O.A. No. 3343 of 2013, O.A. No. 3344 of 2013, O.A. No. 268 of 2014 and O.A. No. 269 of 2014 whereas W.P.(C) No. 19570 of 2015 has been filed by the State challenging the orders dated 30.07.2015 and 04.09.2015 passed by the Tribunal in C.P. No. 701 of 2014 arising out of the said O.A. No. 1510 of 2012. 2. As common questions of law are involved in both the Writ Petitions and the orders challenged by the State have been passed by the Tribunal in one and the same Original Application, the matters are taken up for hearing together. 3. Odisha is a State with maximum percentage of population depending upon agriculture and in the scenario of climatic change as prevails in the present days the green revolution is the need of the hour. The State Government taking into consideration the development of the agriculture as well as the green revolution should take steps to give adequate training to the persons within the age group of 35 so that they will extend helping hand to the people in general for such green revolution. On the above back ground the brief facts of the case has been considered. It appears that 356 candidates he including the applicants of the aforesaid Original Applications have undergone ten months Gardeners training course during the year 1999 for appointment as Gardener in different departmental farms under the petitioners. They have successfully completed the training course and certificates were issued in their favour. Thereafter, the Government has taken a decision that the candidates were selected irregularly and some of them were imparted training in some unidentified farms, outside the School of Horticulture at Khurda. In view of such decision, the candidates, who had already been appointed were terminated. The order of termination was challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by the aggrieved candidates in O.A. Nos. 1144 (C) of 2001, 1181 (C) of 2001, 1374 (C) of 2001 and 1435 (C) of 2001. In view of such decision, the candidates, who had already been appointed were terminated. The order of termination was challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by the aggrieved candidates in O.A. Nos. 1144 (C) of 2001, 1181 (C) of 2001, 1374 (C) of 2001 and 1435 (C) of 2001. The Tribunal by order dated 13.09.2006 quashed the order of termination. Being aggrieved the State preferred W.P.(C) Nos. 3527 of 2007, 3528 of 2007, 3529 of 2007 and 3445 of 2007. This Court by judgment dated 05.12.2009 dismissed the said Writ Petitions with an observation that the action of the opposite parties was discriminatory and they should not have adopted pick and choose method. The applicants were regularly appointed by order dated 30.06.1999 against the substantive vacancies and continued as such almost for two years. Therefore, they are protected under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962 and their services could not have been terminated without a notice to show cause. Since this Court had decided the case on principle in general in favour of the trainees of the year 1999, the applicants who were trainees of the said batch, were expecting to get the benefits of the judgment of this Court. Accordingly, the authorities reinstated the terminated employees. However, the case of the applicants was ignored by the authorities on the ground that the re-instated employees had got an order from the court of law. Finding no other way, the applicants again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 924 of 2011, which was disposed of on 08.08.2011. Alleging non compliance of the order dated 08.08.2011, the applicants filed C.P. No. 135 of 2012. While matter stood thus, the authorities vide order dated 15.09.2012 rejected the claim of the applicants. The applicants, who have successfully completed the training course in the year 1999, have not yet been appointed. It is alleged by the applicants that since some of the candidates, who had completed training in the year 1999, have already been appointed, refusal to give similar benefits to the applicants has resulted hostile discrimination. Therefore, the applicants approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications challenging the order dated 15.09.2012. 4. It is alleged by the applicants that since some of the candidates, who had completed training in the year 1999, have already been appointed, refusal to give similar benefits to the applicants has resulted hostile discrimination. Therefore, the applicants approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications challenging the order dated 15.09.2012. 4. The State authorities filed their counter before the Tribunal contending that the claim of the applicants for their appointment against the vacant posts of Gardener was rejected in view of the policy decision of the Government not to fill up the posts of Gardener while restructuring the Directorate of Horticulture. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the eligible candidates have already been adjusted against the permanent posts created in lieu of posts of Gardener by relaxing their upper age limit. The guidelines for selection of Gardener clearly stipulate that no guarantee can be given in the matter of employment after successful completion of training. The applicants along with other candidates were imparted training in Government farm under the Chairmanship of the Director of Horticulture in order to equip skillful hands for organizing massive graft production programme for prompt self employment. It is stated that 64 candidates were given training in the School of Horticulture, out of whom some candidates were selected by the authorities. These candidates were working as Gardener on ad hoc basis before being sent on training and on completion of training, they were given appointment as Gardener. On the basis of the order passed by this Court, the legality of the appointment of these persons were enquired into and being found irregular, they were terminated by order dated 24.04.2001. The order of termination challenged before the Tribunal was quashed. Challenging the said order the State approached this Court and this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, six candidates were taken back into service. The present applicants are not on the same footing with that of the candidates, who were terminated and subsequently taken back. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, recorded a finding that the Government have taken a policy decision for abolition of the posts of Gardener, is false. The posts of Gardener are still in existence and are lying vacant and trained persons like the applicants were denied appointment on the above plea. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, recorded a finding that the Government have taken a policy decision for abolition of the posts of Gardener, is false. The posts of Gardener are still in existence and are lying vacant and trained persons like the applicants were denied appointment on the above plea. Accordingly, the Tribunal by order dated 27.06.2014 directed the State authorities to consider the case of the applicants for their appointment against the existing vacant posts of Gardener, as has been done in the case of similarly placed trained candidates pursuant to the order of this Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It was further directed that since the opposite parties have been fighting for their right for the last more than 15 years, the State authorities are directed to stick to the deadline fixed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that after disposal of the aforesaid Original Application by the Tribunal, the case of the applicants he were considered and rejected by the Director of Horticulture, Odisha vide order dated 30.09.2014. He further submitted that in the meeting held on 09.05.2012 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Odisha it was decided that in future no recruitment will be made in the cadre of Gardener and when Gardeners would retire or get promoted, the posts will be abolished. Moreover getting training for grafter does not mean to provide regular appointment by the Government. He also submitted that the applicants are not in the same footing with that of the opposite parties in W.P.(C) Nos. 3445, 3527, 3528 and 3529 of 2007. The opposite parties therein were regularly appointed as Gardeners against the substantive vacancies with the concurrence of Finance Department and continued as such almost for two years before their termination from service. They have been reinstated in their service and posted as per the order of this Court. The Tribunal without considering the aforesaid fact has passed the impugned order, which need to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the posts of Gardener are still in existence and are lying vacant, as such there is no reason why the authorities are not considering the case of the applicants against such vacancies. 7. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the posts of Gardener are still in existence and are lying vacant, as such there is no reason why the authorities are not considering the case of the applicants against such vacancies. He further submitted that the candidates, who have completed training in the year 1999 have already been appointed, therefore, the authorities should have considered the case of the applicants. He also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and the same need not be interfered with. 8. After hearing the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, it appears that in pursuance of the order dated 11.05.1999 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 4665 of 1999 filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Secretary being authorized by the Secretary regarding the irregularity committed in appointment of Gardeners. It was found that 64 candidates were selected for Gardeners training and out of them six candidates were selected by the Director, Horticulture without following the proper procedure. The Director, Horticulture without proper notification selected candidates as Gardeners irregularly and imparted training in some unidentified farms under the Director of Horticulture outside the School of Horticulture at Khurda without approval of the Government. The Deputy Secretary also in the said enquiry informed the Director, Horticulture to take immediate steps to dispense with the service of six trainees, who were selected without following the due procedure and the service of those six persons were terminated on the ground of irregular selection. Earlier this Court also in W.P.(C) Nos. 3527, 3528, 3529 and 3445 of 2007 disposed of on 05.12.2009 observed the said fact after calling for the records of O.J.C. No. 4665 of 1999. The Court considered the question whether the selection of the opposite parties for training was legal or not and recorded a finding that all the candidates selected for training had been trained in different farms instead of School of Horticulture at Khurda meant for such training without approval of the Government. The Court considered the question whether the selection of the opposite parties for training was legal or not and recorded a finding that all the candidates selected for training had been trained in different farms instead of School of Horticulture at Khurda meant for such training without approval of the Government. Therefore, all such trainees, who had taken training outside the School stand on the same footing and a pick and choose method could not have been adopted by the Department for the purpose of compliance of the order of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. However, the present applicants, being selected and sponsored under the instruction of Director of Horticulture of Odisha undergone Gardeners training in the School of Horticulture at Khurda in the year 1998-99 and certificates were issued in their favour on successful completion of their training. They were continuing on ad hoc basis before their names were recommended for training and on completion of such training they were posted as Gardeners. It also reveals from the minutes of the meeting of the High Level Committee held on 09.05.2012 that Gardeners were not included as members of the cadre as per the resolution dated 07.03.2012 of the Agriculture Department realizing the urgency to upscale the extension activities the extension activities in the field. The post of Field Technicians and Grafters were merged as per said resolution and consequently 794 Group-C posts were redesigned as Horticulture Extension Worker (H.E.W). In the said resolution, it was decided that there was no necessity of posting of Gardeners Trainees, who were trained in different farms for participating in mass graft production programme and the grafting work may now be managed by the H.E.Ws. It was further decided that in future no recruitment will be made in the cadre of Gardner and when the Gardeners would retire or get promoted, the posts will be abolished. Finance Department have also agreed for creation of 258 posts of Horticulture Extension Worker in lieu of abolition of equal numbers of vacant posts of Gardener as decided in the meeting held on 09.05.2012. The Agriculture Department vide resolution dated 10.10.2012 included Horticulture Extension Workers and Attendants as Group-C & D posts under Odisha State Horticulture Service and made provision for promotion of existing Gardeners having qualification of Class-VII and above he to 50 % posts of Horticulture Extension Worker (Group-C) of the service. The Agriculture Department vide resolution dated 10.10.2012 included Horticulture Extension Workers and Attendants as Group-C & D posts under Odisha State Horticulture Service and made provision for promotion of existing Gardeners having qualification of Class-VII and above he to 50 % posts of Horticulture Extension Worker (Group-C) of the service. However, the said decision has not yet been acted upon or approved by the Government as reveals from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Horticulture on 09.12.2017 pursuant to the direction of this Court on 07.11.2017. It is stated in the said affidavit that more than 100 posts of Gardeners are still lying vacant and the posts of Gardeners has not yet been abolished. It is further stated that concurrence of Finance Department is not required in view of the decision taken at the level of Chief Secretary on 20.04.2011 where officers of Finance Department have agreed to the decision. The Village Horticulture Workers subsequently changed as Horticulture Extension Workers will be created in lieu of 1525 posts of other categories (327 Field Technician + 467 Grafters + 731 Gardeners). The said decision was taken only to comply the direction of the Tribunal as well as this Court for appointment of Gardeners in large number of Court cases and in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting held on 20.04.2011 not to recruit Gardeners in future. It is also stated that the Finance Department have agreed for creation of 258 posts of Horticulture Extension Workers in the scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- in lieu of abolition of equal number of vacant posts of Gardeners as decided in the meeting held on 09.05.2012. It reveals from the note sheet dated 15.09.2012 signed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department that a decision was taken in the meeting held on 09.05.2012 that against 258 posts of Gardeners, equal number of posts of H.E.W should be created as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 20.04.2011. This would be in addition to 794 posts concurred in by the Finance Department in the restructuring proposal. From the above facts, it reveals that somehow the selection process was made irregularly by the petitioners and to patch up the said irregularity and to subterfuge the orders passed by the Court all these actions have been taken. This would be in addition to 794 posts concurred in by the Finance Department in the restructuring proposal. From the above facts, it reveals that somehow the selection process was made irregularly by the petitioners and to patch up the said irregularity and to subterfuge the orders passed by the Court all these actions have been taken. The restructuring of the posts are taken for the development of the agricultural process in the State and Gardeners are being appointed so that they will develop better qualitative product for a green revolution in the State. However, the action of the opposite parties is only to restrict such agricultural development resultantly number of litigation's are being filed in the Courts. Admittedly Gardener posts are still lying vacant and Government has taken a decision to upgrade such posts as Horticulture Extension Workers in lieu of abolition of equal number of vacant posts of Gardeners. The applicants have undergone training being selected and sponsored by the Government. They have also successfully completed the training course. Since the Gardener posts are lying vacant there is no reason why the State should not consider the case of the applicants against such vacancies. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has recorded finding of facts on the basis of the materials available on records and passed a reasoned order. There is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the applicants, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, is less than the number of vacant posts available for the Gardeners, we direct the petitioners-State authorities to streamline the engagement of the applicants of the aforesaid Original Applications in the post of Gardeners and regularize their service in the interest of people of the State to get helping hand of trained Gardeners for a green revolution in the State. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. The interim order dated 16.11.2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 18294 of 2015 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 19570 of 2015 stands vacated. Final Result : Disposed Of