JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - This writ application is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the State of Odisha assailing the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 188 (C) of 1998, whereby and whereunder the relief sought for by the applicant opposite party to allow him to join the post in which he was continuing, has been answered in his favour. 2. The brief fact of the case, in short, is that the applicant-opposite party has made an application for being appointed as Secretary in Consumers Cooperative Stores in pursuance to an advertisement having been issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the year 1995, the applicant being a candidate has ultimately been found to be qualified and appointed vide order dated 30.10.1997 and was given place of posting like all other candidates included in that order. At the time of joining, they were required to submit ;certain documents as specified in the order and as a departmental candidate, the applicant was required to file the certificate from his Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies in respect of his continuous working in the society for not less than five years as on 1.1.1993, as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. The appointment of the applicant-opposite party was cancelled because he could not join within the stipulated period. The grievance of the applicant-opposite party was that he could not join within the prescribed period due to refusal of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Cuttack to issue the certificate. He had applied for extension of joining time for producing the certificate. In support of his stand, he has produced postal acknowledgment of his application for extension of joining time for the purpose. The applicant has approached the Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the effect that the cancellation of appointment is illegal and to issue direction upon the State authorities for absorbing him in the post of Inspector as per the appointment order dated 30.10.1997. The petitioner-State (opposite party before the Tribunal), had appeared before the Tribunal and filed counter affidavit taking their stand that the applicant-opposite party was working in honorary capacity and was not in receipt of any salary and as such, the certificate was not issued to him. The petitioner-State (opposite party before the Tribunal), had appeared before the Tribunal and filed counter affidavit taking their stand that the applicant-opposite party was working in honorary capacity and was not in receipt of any salary and as such, the certificate was not issued to him. Hence, the applicant is not fulfilling the provisions as contained in the recruitment Rules, Orissa Subordinate Co-operative Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)Rules, 1992, hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules, 1992”. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length, has passed the order deciding the issue as to whether the service of five years should be interpreted as service in honorary capacity or service in salaried capacity, the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that neither the advertisement nor the appointment order contains any indication that a distinction is to be made between those workers of co-operative societies who are in receipt of remuneration or those who are working in honorary capacity, hence rejected the plea of the petitioner-State and directed the authorities to allow the applicant opposite party to resume his duties in pursuance to the order of appointment dated 30.10.1997. The same is under challenge in this writ application before this Court. . 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the documents available on record. 4. The sole question raised before this Court by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate assailing the order passed by the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact in right perspective and has not considered the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of experience for the period when he has discharged his duty on honorarium basis since the applicant has performed his duty under the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies without any salary. To support his stand, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has argued out vehemently that the applicant has got no right to remain in service since he has not fulfilled the required conditions contained either in the Rules, 1992 or the advertisement. 5. We have appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and examined the contention raised by the learned Addl. Govt. Govt. Advocate has argued out vehemently that the applicant has got no right to remain in service since he has not fulfilled the required conditions contained either in the Rules, 1992 or the advertisement. 5. We have appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and examined the contention raised by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate in this regard and have found that neither the Rules, 1992 nor the advertisement contains a condition that work experience for five years will only to be considered for such period in which the person working has got salary. 6. We have found from the communication dated 3.10.1997 issued from the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha dated 2.11.1997 addressed to all the Divisional Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies requiring the candidates to submit the relevant documents one of those document includes: “a certificate from the concerned Divisional D.R.C.S. in support of their continuous working in the Society/Office for not less than 5 years as on 1.1.1993.” It is evident from the communication dated 3.10.1997 that the only requirement for a candidate to submit the documents regarding work experience of continuous working in the society/office for not less than five years as on 1.1.1993 without any stipulation that the work experience will be counted only for those persons who has got salary in lieu of their rendering service. 7. We have been informed by the learned counsel representing the applicant-opposite party that the same issue fell for consideration before this Court in O.J.C. No. 15124 of 1997 and a coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the stand of the State that the services rendered by an employee without getting any remuneration or salary or honorary period of service is fit to be deleted from the qualifying service, has negated the said stand, this Court has passed an order directing the authorities to count the said period towards the eligibility condition, hence, the issue raised in this writ application has already been decided and settled in O.J.C. No. 15124 of 1997. 8. 8. The Tribunal has taken note of the communication dated 3.10.1997 and appreciating the same since there is no stipulation in the said communication regarding counting of the past services only to such an employee, who has got their salary, has passed order rejecting the claim of the State with a direction to treat the honorary period of the applicant to work under the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and thereby directed to allow him to resume his duty. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has, however, taken and additional point before this Court by arguing that the applicant has not even submitted the experience certificate, but we on examination of the counter affidavit filed by the State before the Tribunal, have found that no such plea was taken before the Tribunal, rather the case of the State all along before the Tribunal was that the honorary period is not fit to be counted towards counting the eligibility of the applicant and as such, the point which has been raised by the State in the writ application is not fit to be entertained reason being that this writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari and it is settled that a writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any error apparent on the face of record or order is without any jurisdiction or order is with malafide intention, but in no circumstances, a writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court totally on new grounds, which were never been taken before the lower forum. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the new ground taken by the State in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition stating that experience certificate has not been produced before the learned Tribunal and for this, the best course for the State should have been to file review before the original Court instead of filing this writ application. 9. We, after following the principle as stated in the preceding paragraphs, are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the order, rather the Tribunal after applying the conscious mind and going into the direction of the authority as contained in the communication dated 3.10.1997, has passed the order. 9. We, after following the principle as stated in the preceding paragraphs, are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the order, rather the Tribunal after applying the conscious mind and going into the direction of the authority as contained in the communication dated 3.10.1997, has passed the order. We have also examined the order and have found that the issue has already been issued by this Court in O.J.C. No. 15124 of 1997. 10. We after taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspects, are of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, the writ application lacks merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Application dismissed.