JUDGMENT : K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, ‘learned Tribunal) in O.A. No.849 (C) of 2009 dismissing the Original Application. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in O.A. No.849 (C) of 2009 was that pursuant to a recruitment test held on 21.08.1984 for the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the Director General of Police Orissa, (DGPO), the petitioner was duly selected and was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.09.1984 on ad hoc basis. While continuing as such, another recruitment test was conducted to fill up 56 posts of Junior Assistant on regular basis on 25.06.1985. The petitioner although qualified in the written test, but was not called to appear in the viva voce conducted in November, 1986. Consequently, the petitioner along with 26 other Junior Assistants, who were continuing on ad hoc basis, were discharged from service with effect from 06.12.1986 pursuant to order dated 03.12.1986. Being aggrieved, the petitioner along with 26 others challenged their termination before learned Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 246 of 1986 and 96 of 1987 praying inter alia to quash the termination order. The said Original Applications were disposed of vide order dated 25.08.1987 with a direction that the petitioner along with 26 others be allowed to continue as such till the posts are filled up through regular recruitment test to be held in conformity with the procedure/instructions governing the field. The said order of learned Tribunal was challenged by the State of Odisha before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.1988 and the order of learned Tribunal was confirmed. Subsequent to order dated 19.01.1988 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service and was allowed to continue purely on ad hoc basis vide order dated 11.02.1988. It is apt to note here that earlier recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant in Ministerial Cadre of the Police Head Quarters and in other Departments of Government of Odisha was governed by ‘The Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment) of Junior Assistant in Office of the Heads of Departments Rules, 1975’. In the year 1980, the D.G. of Police requested the Government to exempt his office from application of the said Rules. In the year 1980, the D.G. of Police requested the Government to exempt his office from application of the said Rules. Thus, the State Government directed the DGPO to submit draft Rules for consideration and in the interregnum, some appointments like the petitioner was made during 1981-1988. Subsequently, Orissa Ministerial Officers of the Office of the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police and Certain other Offices (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1988 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1988’) came into force. Recruitment test was held in the year 1988 for 100 posts of Junior Assistant, in terms of the Rules, 1988. Out of 100 posts, 33 were anticipated vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant. After the recruitment test, the petitioner along with 65 others had to face termination vide order dated 16.08.1988. Out of them, 12 employees challenged their termination in O.A. No. 1179 of 1988, whereas Anwar Jamil and others challenged the same in O.A. No.206 of 1989. When O.A.No.206 of 1989 was pending, O.A.No.1179 of 1988 was disposed of vide order dated 22.10.1990 quashing the termination order and treating the applicants therein (12 in numbers) deemed to be continuing in service from their initial date of appointment, i.e., 20.12.1986 without any break. Similar other Original Applications were also disposed of along with the same. The State-opposite parties assailed those orders in different Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed on the ground of delay. After dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the applicants in O.A No.1179 of 1988 were issued with appointment orders on 27.11.1991. Subsequently, O.A. No.206 of 1989 was taken up for hearing. Although the applicants including the petitioner stood in a similar footing with applicants in O.A. No.1179 of 1988, learned Tribunal took a different view in Original Application bearing OA No.206 of 1989 and disposed of the same vide order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure-5 to the OA) directing as under:- “(i) Candidates who have been appointed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police between the years 1981 and 1988 before the rules came into force are to continue on ad hoc basis and cannot be treated to have been validly recruited to be appointed on regular basis when State Government did not approve the proposal of the Director General and Inspector General of Police to regularize them. (ii) Decision of the Tribunal treating those appointments to be on regular basis without taking note of pendency of this application and incorrectly distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court would not be binding on the Respondents and thus, the decision cannot give any benefit to the successful parties. (iii) Result of the recruitment examination held in which the applicants and many others appeared has to be verified again. Those who satisfy the requirement of the rules are to be considered to have been selected and shall be given appointments. They will be senior to the candidates who have been allowed to continue on ad hoc basis. (iv) In respect of others, a special test under the statutory rules shall be held for their regular appointment. (v) Since applicants have suffered for about eight years and irregular appointees are continuing for about 15 years, I direct that the entire process as directed shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the Director General and Inspector General of Police (Respondent No.2). Respondent No.1 shall regulate the implementation of this order within the time stipulated.” 3. Being not satisfied, one Ajay Kumar Bhuyan and others (respondent Nos.10,11,14,15 and 24 in OA No.206 of 1989) filed a Review Petition bearing R.P. No.17 of 1997, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.1997. Being aggrieved, said Ajaya Kumar Bhuyan and others as well as the State-Opposite parties moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders passed in OA No.206 of 1989 as well as in Review Petition bearing RP No.17 of 1997, by filing separate Civil Appeals, which were dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2002 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Civil Appeals also deprecated the earlier orders passed in OA No.1179 of 1988 and similar other Original Applications disposed of in terms of OA No.1179 of 1988. Due to non-compliance of the order passed in O.A. No.206 of 1989, Contempt Petition in C.P. No.49 (C) of 2003 was filed. In the contempt proceeding, State-opposite parties took a stand that pursuant to the direction in O.A. No. 206 of 1989, the authorities have verified the result of recruitment in between 1981 to 1988 and had implemented the order of learned Tribunal in its letter and spirit. On the basis of the submissions made by learned State Counsel, the contempt proceeding was dropped. On the basis of the submissions made by learned State Counsel, the contempt proceeding was dropped. Assailing the order passed in contempt proceeding, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.8076 of 2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2006. 4. The petitioner thereafter obtained information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which revealed that the petitioner had secured 149 marks in the recruitment test. Persons securing less marks were given appointment, whereas the case of the petitioner was not considered. Accordingly, the petitioner along with others made a representation to the authorities bringing to their notice the aforesaid illegality committed in the matter. Petitioner’s representation was rejected by opposite party No.1 on 16.03.2009. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 849(C) of 2009. In the Original Application, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Junior Assistant in DGPO, as candidates securing less mark than him were appointed and continued in service with effect from 27.11.1991 along with other relief. Learned Tribunal holding that the persons selected being not made parties, that the applicants having secured less than 33% marks in the General Knowledge subject and that the applicant cannot be placed in the merit list of the general candidates as the persons selected had secured more marks in aggregate than the applicant, dismissed the Original Application. As such, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties contending that vide order dated 11.07.2003 passed in CP No.49(C) of 2003 direction was made to verify whether the petitioner along with four applicants satisfied/fulfilled the requirement of Rules, 1988 for the limited purpose of disposing of the Contempt Petition. Accordingly, verification was made and an affidavit dated 07.08.2003 was filed by the Director General of Police to the effect that the petitioner along with four others could not be appointed as they had secured less mark than the last candidate selected in the general category. Accordingly, the Contempt Proceeding was dropped. The illustrations given by the petitioner in the writ petition to the effect that the selected candidates had secured less marks than the petitioner, is of no avail to him, as all of them were appointed against different reserved categories. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Proceeding was dropped. The illustrations given by the petitioner in the writ petition to the effect that the selected candidates had secured less marks than the petitioner, is of no avail to him, as all of them were appointed against different reserved categories. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 09.01.2018 enclosing a list of candidates prepared pursuant to order dated 21.09.2016 passed by learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1(C) of 2012 disclosing the names of Junior Assistant appointed in between 1981-88, i.e., prior to enforcement of Rules, 1988. The petitioner in the said affidavit stated that the Junior Assistants, who were appointed and continuing in ex-cadre posts as per the list enclosed thereto, had secured less marks than the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner claimed that he should be appointed as an ex-cadre Junior Assistant like the persons named in the enclosed list to the affidavit. This Court vide order No.20 dated 08.12.2017, also directed the learned Advocate for the State to take instruction from opposite parties 1 and 2 as to whether the petitioner can be adjusted in an ex-cadre post. Accordingly, the Additional Government Advocate submitted the written instruction received from the Addl. Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Odisha, Cuttack dated 12th February, 2018 reiterating the facts and grounds more-fully stated in their counter affidavit. But, learned Additional Government Advocate could not receive any instructions pursuant to order dated 08.12.2017. 7. On perusal of the affidavit dated 09.01.2018 filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that persons appointed in between 1981-88, who secured less marks than the petitioner have been allowed to continue in the ex-cadre post pursuant to order dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-1/A to the affidavit) filed by the petitioner. Hence, in absence of any material to the contrary, we are constrained to direct that the case of the petitioner be considered for appointment in ex-cadre posts of Junior Assistant in terms of order dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-1/A to the affidavit) and consequential action be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.