JUDGMENT K.R.MOHAPATRA, J. - This intra Court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 26817 of 2013. 2. Brief narration of facts proper adjudication of the case are as follows: Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26817 of 2013) were unemployed Diploma Engineers (Civil). In order to give employment to un-employed Diploma Engineers in Odisha, the State Government in its erstwhile Political and Service Department vide its resolution dated 06.08.1979 and subsequently, G.A. Department, vide resolution dated 03.04.1991 took decision for giving employment to the unemployed Diploma holders in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in different departments of the Government and Government Undertakings by empanelling their names. Vide resolution dated 02.02.2000, Engineer-in-Chief was appointed as Chairman of the Committee for empanelling the names of unemployed Diploma Engineers as well as for providing employment to Diploma Holders in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering from the panel maintained by the said Committee. The resolution dated 03.04.1991 of the G.A. Department provides that all appointments in the Government Departments, Government Undertakings and other Government Institutions should be made from the panel of the candidates maintained by the said Committee. Accordingly, the appellants (opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in the writ petition), namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited (for short ‘OMCL’) and General Manager (P & A), OMCL, respectively, vide letter dated 12.08.2013 wrote the Chairman of the Committee to sponsor names of the candidates to fill up 21 number of vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil), 7 number of vacancies of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and 3 number of vacancies of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) for their appointment in OMCL as per the guidelines. Pursuant to the said letter, the Committee, vide its letter dated 19.10.2013 sponsored the names of 21 number of Diploma holders (Civil) including the names of respondents No. 2 to 11. While the matter stood thus, the appellant No. 1- Chairman-cum- Managing Director, OMCL intimated the Chairman of the Committee that the OMCL had decided to fill up such vacancies on regular basis (not on contract basis) through open competitive recruitment process. While the matter stood thus, the appellant No. 1- Chairman-cum- Managing Director, OMCL intimated the Chairman of the Committee that the OMCL had decided to fill up such vacancies on regular basis (not on contract basis) through open competitive recruitment process. In reply, the Chairman of the Committee, vide its letter dated 16.12.2013, stated that although the Government has introduced Odisha Engineers’ Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules’), which came into force on 29.12.2012 to regulate the methods of direct recruitment, pursuant to which the posts of Diploma Engineers in the State should be filled up through selection to be conducted by Odisha Staff Selection Commission, but the Government in exercise of power conferred under Rule 19 of the Rules, relaxed the applicability of the provisions and took a conscious decision to postpone the enforcement of the said Rules to 1st April, 2014, vide Water Resources Department order No. 26245 dated 05.10.2013. As such, recruitment from the panel of the Committee should continue up to 31.03.2014. It was further clarified in the said letter that after sponsoring names of 28 Diploma Engineers from the panel for appointment in OMCL, names of their junior had already been sponsored to other departments. Hence, there would be serious disruptions in appointment of Diploma Engineers from the panel in accordance with their seniority. As such, their names cannot be re-sponsored. Thus, the Chairman of the Committee had requested the authorities under OMCL to give employment to the sponsored candidates on regular basis as per their requisition, to avoid further complicacies. Although several correspondences were exchanged between the Chairman of the Committee and the authorities of OMCL, but ultimately the respondents No. 2 TO 11, whose names were sponsored, could not be given employment under the OMCL. Hence, they filed W.P.(C) No. 26817 of 2013 before this Court. 3. The respondents No. 2 to 11 in the writ petition, reiterating the aforesaid facts, contended that as per the requisition of the OMCL, their names were duly sponsored. After seeking requisition, OMCL cannot back out from its promises to give employment to the sponsored candidates taking a plea of enforcement of the Rules. Further, as per resolution of the Government, their names could not be re-sponsored and in the meantime, their juniors have been given employment being sponsored by the Committee. After seeking requisition, OMCL cannot back out from its promises to give employment to the sponsored candidates taking a plea of enforcement of the Rules. Further, as per resolution of the Government, their names could not be re-sponsored and in the meantime, their juniors have been given employment being sponsored by the Committee. Due to the arbitrary action of the OMCL authorities, they were seriously prejudiced and were rendered jobless. Hence, they prayed for setting aside the decision taken by OMCL to fill up the posts on regular basis through open competitive recruitment process. 4. The appellants (opposite parties No.2 and 3 in the writ petition) filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition stating that they were in dark about promulgation of the Rules, 2012, which was notified on 29.12.2012. Consequently, OMCL had inadvertently made requisition to sponsor names of candidates from the panel. When the authorities under the OMCL came to know about the Rules, 2012, they wrote to the Committee stating that the candidates sponsored by them could not be given appointment and the posts should be filled up through open competitive recruitment process in strict adherence of the provisions of the Rules. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and materials available on record, vide its judgment dated 03.03.2014, allowed the writ petition quashed the order dated 04.12.2013 of the OMCL deciding to fill up the vacant posts on regular basis. Learned Single Judge further directed that the appellants to issue appointment orders in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 11 in respect of the existing vacancies in accordance with recommendation of the Committee dated 09.10.2013. Assailing the said judgment, this writ appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the plea of the OMCL taken before the writ Court. he further submitted that by the time the appellants made a requisition to sponsor names for filling up of the vacant posts in OMCL, the Rules, 2012 had already come into force. By enactment of Rules. 2012, the resolution passed by the Government ceases to operate and the recruitment could only be made strictly in adherence of the procedures provided under Rules, 2012. By enactment of Rules. 2012, the resolution passed by the Government ceases to operate and the recruitment could only be made strictly in adherence of the procedures provided under Rules, 2012. In the meantime, the names of respondents No. 2 to 11 had been re-sponsored by the Committee for appointment under the BDA, OLIC as well as Panchayatiraj Department. He further submitted that although requisition was made to the Committee on 12.08.2013 to sponsor names to fill up vacancies from the panel, the Committee sat over the matter for quite a long period and sent the names after eight weeks from the date of issuance of letter of requisition. In the meantime, steps had been taken to fill up the posts through direct recruitment. Hence, the names of respondents No. 2 to 11 could not have been considered for employment under the OMCL. These aspects were not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. As such, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the writ Court. 7. Learned counsel for appearing for the respondents No.2 to 11, vehemently objected to such submissions. He contended that appellant-OMCL had initially made requisition for filling up vacant post of Junior Engineers in different streams under the OMCL. Accordingly, their names were sponsored. Upon receipt of the names from the Committee, the OMCL, instead of providing employment to them, had changed its mind and intimated the Committee to fill up the posts through direct recruitment from open market. Although, the Committee had, in its reply, specifically stated that the Rules, 2012 would come into effect from 01.04.2014 and the recruitment could be made from the panel till 31.03.2014, OMCL, for the reasons best known to it, had proceeded to publish advertisement for filling up of the posts through direct recruitment, which is per se illegal. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, allowed the writ petition. Further, the stand taken by the appellants, to the effect that the names were sponsored after eight weeks from the date of requisition and in the meantime, steps had been taken to make recruitment directly from the open market, was never a plea before the writ Court. Hence, the appellants are estopped to raise such a plea in the writ appeal for the first time. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Hence, the appellants are estopped to raise such a plea in the writ appeal for the first time. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the plea of the OMCL with regard to applicability of the provisions of Rules, 2012 and righty came to the conclusion that such plea taken by the OMCL is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the Government of Odisha has taken a conscious decision to postpone the date of enforcement of the Rules, 2012 in exercise of power conferred on it under Rule 19 of the said Rules. Thus, the Rules, 2012 became effective only on 01.04.2014 and appointment of Diploma Engineers would be made from the panel till 31.03.2014. further, the plea of the OMCL that the names were sponsored after eight weeks from the date of letter of requisition and in the meantime steps have been taken for recruitment to the vacant posts directly, cannot be considered at this stage, as the same has been agitated for the first time in the writ appeal. In the meantime, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 have already joined at different places and they are not interested for any appointment under the OMCL. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that since respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 had already joined in some other Corporation, the judgment of learned Single Judge is applicable only in the case of respondents No. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10. 10. Writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.