JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of opposite party No.1 for not regularizing the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 26.03.2010. FACTS: 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-1) made by opposite party No.1 to fill up the post of Steno (Grade-III), the petitioner applied for the same and after due selection, he was appointed on 26.03.2010 in accordance with the provision of the erstwhile Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called “Rules,1969”). On the other hand, he was issued with the appointment letter temporarily on Ad hoc basis and posted in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur. Thereafter, the Ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was renewed from year to year but could not be regularized under the impression that his appointment was made under the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts (Special Scheme) (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called “the Rules, 2001”) although he was appointed against the regular post under Rules, 1969. Instead of regularizing the service of the petitioner, the opposite party No.1 made fresh advertisement on 09.05.2012 for the post of Junior Stenographer (Grade-III) which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 and this Court disposed of that writ petition on 18.01.2013 directing opposite party No.1 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others -V- District Judge, Balasore and another (W.P.(C) Nos.9690, 9691 and 9692 of 2009), if the ratio of the said cases applies to the case of the petitioner. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner made representation on 22.01.2013 and the learned District Judge, Bhadrak-opposite party No.1, passed order on 08.04.2013 (Annexure-7) regularizing the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.04.2013. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner made representation on 22.01.2013 and the learned District Judge, Bhadrak-opposite party No.1, passed order on 08.04.2013 (Annexure-7) regularizing the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.04.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that his regularization should have been made from the date of his initial appointment because in similar matter in the case of Satya Kumar Das-v-District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak and another (W.P.(C) No.22244 of 2010), this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.01.2012 with following observation:- “It would be just and proper for this Court to observe that regularization of the services of the petitioner in the post must go back to the original date of his appointment. Therefore, the stand taken in the statement of counter is wholly untenable in law. The petitioner succeeds. Rule is issued. The affected portion in the appointment order that the regularization is given with effect from 15.03.2010 (Annexure-10) is hereby quashed only insofar as regularization of the services of the petitioner in the post in question. Direction is given to the District Judge to give effect to regularization from the date of appointment of the petitioner and the same shall be applied extending the consequential benefits for which he is legally entitled to. The writ petition is allowed in the above term.” 4. Be it is stated that when this Court has already taken the view that the regularization of the service should be made from the initial appointment, the order passed by opposite party No.1 is illegal and improper and the service of the petitioner should have been regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 26.03.2010 but not from 10.04.2013. So, the writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 08.04.2013 vide Annexure-7 passed by opposite party No.1 and further prays to direct the opposite party No.1 to pass fresh order regularizing the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 26.03.2010. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. It is the case of the opposite parties that the original advertisement was made by the learned District Judge, Balasore under undivided judgeship for 08 posts of Junior Stenographer mentioning in Annexure-1 in the writ petition and only one post was advertised for the candidate of SEBC Men category. It is the case of the opposite parties that the original advertisement was made by the learned District Judge, Balasore under undivided judgeship for 08 posts of Junior Stenographer mentioning in Annexure-1 in the writ petition and only one post was advertised for the candidate of SEBC Men category. The petitioner was placed at SL. No.9 of the merit list. In the merit list, SL. Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 were SEBC candidates. Since there are 07 SEBC candidates above the present petitioner in the merit list and there was only one post of SEBC male category and there was no regular vacancy for the petitioner to be appointed as Junior Stenographer as per the ORV Act and Rules, the petitioner was appointed on Ad hoc basis vide Annexure-B/2 and his appointment was renewed from time to time because of the promotion given to the Junior Stenographer to the post of Senior Stenographer created for the Fast Track Court temporarily and the posting in the Fast Track Court was tenure based. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra), the services of the petitioners, in those cases, were regularized but there was no order in that case to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. When the posting of the petitioner was not against the regular vacancy and it was on Ad hoc basis, the question of regularization of service from the date of his initial appointment does not arise. Hence, it is stated that the order of opposite party No.1 is correct and proper and the petitioner has no merit to succeed in this case. SUBMISSIONS 6. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being recruited against the regular vacancy and there being no provision for filling up the post on Ad hoc basis, the opposite party No.1 has committed error by issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner against Ad hoc post. SUBMISSIONS 6. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being recruited against the regular vacancy and there being no provision for filling up the post on Ad hoc basis, the opposite party No.1 has committed error by issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner against Ad hoc post. On the other hand, the advertisement being made against the regular vacancy and there being Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 1969 showing the post on temporary basis and there is clear provision in the Rules for appointing the employee at first on probation for two years, the appointment of the petitioner on Ad hoc basis is totally contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1969. He further submits that the impression of the opposite parties to fill up the post under the erstwhile Rules, 2001 on Ad hoc basis is misconceived and contrary to law. 7. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the renewal of the service of the petitioner in each year since the date of his appointment is also contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1969. Opposite party No.1 has erred in law by not complying the order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 wherein order has been passed to allow the representation of the present petitioner in the light of the decision passed in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra). According to him, Gettanjali Pattnaik and one Satya Kumar Das who are also from the undivided judgeship of Balasore had filed the writ application on similar facts and circumstances and this Court vide W.P.(C) Nos.9690 and 9692 of 2009 directed to regularize the service of the petitioners therein but the authorities regularized their service from the date of passing of the order of regularization but not from the date of their initial appointment for which Satya Kumar Das had filed W.P.(C) No.22244 of 2010 and this Court directed the opposite party to regularize the service of Satya Kumar Das from the date of his original appointment and awarded consequential service benefits. 8. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the case of the present petitioner is covered by the above decisions. 8. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the case of the present petitioner is covered by the above decisions. So, he submitted to quash the order of regularization of the present petitioner w.e.f. 10.4.2013 and direct to issue fresh notification regularizing the service of the petitioner from the date of his original appointment i.e., 26.03.2010. 9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the opposite parties have mentioned in their counter affidavit that the present petitioner although applied in pursuance of the advertisement made in 2009 for the post of Steno (Grade-III) but his position remained at SL. No.9 in the merit list under the SEBC category to which the petitioner belongs to. According to him, there are other SEBC candidates above petitioner and there was only one male SEBC post. Since the petitioner was in the lower rank, he could not be given appointment against the regular post. But due to necessity of Senior Stenographer in the Fast Track Court under the FTC Scheme, the Junior Stenographer (Grade-III) was promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer and against that vacancy the present petitioner was given appointment on Ad hoc basis. He further submits that when there was no regular vacancy for the petitioner, the petitioner was only appointed on Ad hoc basis just to manage the vacancy occurred due to promotion of Junior Stenographer to Senior Stenographer. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that since the Fast Track Court under the FTC Scheme is a tenure based Court, the appointment of Senior Stenographer to such Court was co-terminus. Apprehending about reversion of Senior Stenographer at any time to the original post, the appointment of the petitioner is renewed in each year on Ad hoc basis. He further submits that in view of the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013, the opposite party No.1 has considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the case of Geetanjali Pattanik and others (supra) and accordingly the impugned order of regularization has been issued. Since there was no substantive vacancy available in 2010, original appointment of the petitioner was regularized from the date of the order i.e., 10.04.2013 and at no other circumstances, the petitioner could be regularized w.e.f. 26.03.2010. 11. Since there was no substantive vacancy available in 2010, original appointment of the petitioner was regularized from the date of the order i.e., 10.04.2013 and at no other circumstances, the petitioner could be regularized w.e.f. 26.03.2010. 11. POINT FOR DETERMINATION (i) The main point for consideration in this case is whether the service of the petitioner is to be regularized from the date of his original appointment. DISCUSSION 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected in the recruitment to the post of Steno (Grade-III) against the advertisement dated 17.11.2009 vide Annexure-1. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 26.03.2010 as Stenographer (Grade-III) temporarily on Ad hoc basis with the Scale of Pay of Rs.5,200-20,200/- & Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- being posted in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMFC, Basudevpur. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner’s appointment was renewed from time to time in each year. 13. Annexure-1 shows that there are two posts of Steno (Grade-III) under SEBC category, i.e., Male (1) and Female (1). Nothing has been found therein to fill up the post temporarily on Ad hoc basis. Although there was appointment on Ad hoc basis, but Annexure-2 shows his posting against regular post in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMFC, Basudevpur, which on the other hand affirms the claim of the petitioner. 14. Annexure-4 shows that the petitioner being aggrieved for inaction of the opposite parties in not regularizing his service, had filed W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013, wherein the following order was passed:- “The above order is passed by this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that if the learned District Judge, Bhadrak finds that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra) is applicable to the case of the petitioner, the same benefit shall be extended to him, as has been directed therein. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently all pending misc. cases stand disposed of.” Thus, this Court has directed in earlier W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 filed by petitioner to follow the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra) if the ratio of the same is applicable. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently all pending misc. cases stand disposed of.” Thus, this Court has directed in earlier W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 filed by petitioner to follow the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra) if the ratio of the same is applicable. 15. On going through the judgment of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra), it appears that the petitioners in those cases being the candidates for the post of Junior Stenographer (Grade-III) were selected in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.06.2002 and given the Ad hoc appointment contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1969 but not under Rules, 2001. In those cases, the same plea had been taken by the petitioners. Their Lordships observed in the following manner:- “So, when the petitioners were selected in the recruitment held under the 1969 Rules and were appointed and posted, as aforesaid, continued to be employed since 2003 in case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9690 and 9692 of 2009 and 2005 in case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9691 of 2009 without any interruption and their services are otherwise required by the institutions and they would better serve the organization than fresh recruits by virtue of the experience gained in the meantime, we see no justification as to why the benefit of regularization should be denied to them on the pretext of the Special Scheme.” With regard to the aforesaid decision, there was no post found sanctioned by the 11th Finance Commission. That writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to regularize the service of the petitioners under Rules, 1969. Opposite party No.1 in those cases regularized the service of the petitioners with effect from the date when the concerned officer issued the notification but not from the initial appointment. 16. Challenging the said order again, the petitioner, Satya Kumar Das, in those cases filed the writ petition and in that writ petition, necessary order was passed at paragraph-5 in the following manner:- “5. It would be just and proper for this Court to observe that regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post must go back to the original date of his appointment. Therefore, the stand taken in the statement of counter is wholly untenable in law. The petition succeeds. Rule is issued. It would be just and proper for this Court to observe that regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post must go back to the original date of his appointment. Therefore, the stand taken in the statement of counter is wholly untenable in law. The petition succeeds. Rule is issued. The affected portion in the appointment order that the regularization is given with effect from 15.03.2010 (Annexure-10) is hereby quashed only insofar as regularization of the services of the petitioner in the post in question. Direction is given to the District Judge to give effect to regularization from the date of appointment of the petitioner and the same shall be applied extending the consequential benefits for which he is legally entitled to. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. This order shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of its receipt.” With due regard to the aforesaid decision of this Court, it appears that, this Court observed clearly that the regularization of service must be made with effect from the date of his original appointment but not from the date of passing of order of regularization along with the service benefits accrued. Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court in W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The impugned order (Annexure-7) in the present case is as follows for reference:- “OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BHADRAK ORDER No.175/ Dated, Bhadrak this the 8th day of April, 2013. In consideration of the representation submitted by Shri Pruthiraj Jena, Adhoc Jr. Stenographer Gr.-III attached to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur and in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court dtd.18.1.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.1354/2013, the service of Shri Purthiraj Jena, Adhoc Jr. Stenographer Gr.-III attached to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur is hereby regularized and absorbed, in regular vacancy as Junior Stenographer Gr.-III in the Pay Structure i.e., P.B.-1 Rs.5,200-20,200/- & Grade Pay Rs.2,400/- with usual D.A. and other Allowances as admissible to the State Govt. employees from time to time and posted as such in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge- (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur until further orders. This order be given effect from the forenoon of 10.04.2013 positively. Inform all concerned. employees from time to time and posted as such in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge- (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur until further orders. This order be given effect from the forenoon of 10.04.2013 positively. Inform all concerned. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BHADRAK” There is nothing found from the aforesaid order how the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra) has been followed while passing the order vide Annexure-7 because there was nothing as such referred about the order of this Court. Apart from this, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties could not produce the merit list to show that while the petitioner was given appointment, there was no vacancy to accommodate him. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has issued the letter of appointment against a regular vacancy of regular Court i.e., Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMFC, Basudevpur. The case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the decision of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (Supra) and also by the decision of Satya Kumar Das vide W.P.(C) No.22244 of 2010. The opposite party has failed to satisfy the ground for appointment of the petitioner on Ad hoc basis but not on regular basis. 17. In terms of the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner was appointed against the regular vacancy in pursuance of the advertisement made in 2009 and as per Rule, 6(5) of Rules, 1969, he should be appointed temporarily on probation for a period of two years instead of Ad hoc basis. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the present petitioner being similar to the case of the petitioners namely Satya Kumar Das and Geetanjali Pattnaik, the petitioner’s service should be regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 26.03.2010 but not from 10.04.2013. The issue No.(i) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 18. In W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013, this Court had directed to dispose of the representation of the present petitioner in the light of ratio in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others (supra) and the same order has been compiled by the opposite party No.1 in regularizing the service of the present petitioner w.e.f. 10.04.2013 but not from the date of his original appointment. Since, we are of the view that the petitioner should be regularized from the date of his original appointment, Annexure-7 must be quashed and the Court do so. Since, we are of the view that the petitioner should be regularized from the date of his original appointment, Annexure-7 must be quashed and the Court do so. We, therefore, direct the opposite party No.1 to issue fresh order of regularization of service of the petitioner with effect from the date of his original appointment i.e., 26.03.2010 with all consequential service benefits accrued to him. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.