JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash order dated 31.03.2011 passed by opposite party No. 1-Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur in Annexure-5 allowing the representation of opposite party No. 4 and directing to give him engagement as Gram Rozagar Sevak (GRS) of Kiajhar Gram Panchayat under Danagadi Block in the district of Jajpur, (pursuant to order dated 23.02.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18372 of 2009. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party No. 2 issued an advertisement on 21.07.2007 inviting applications for engagement of Multipurpose Assistant (Gram Rozgar Sevak) in respect of Kijhar G.P. under Danagadi Block in the district of Jajpur on contractual basis with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 2000/- per month. As per guidelines issued by the Government, the qualification for the said post was prescribed as 10+2 pass and preference would be given to the candidates from commerce stream having computer proficiency of "O" Level with use of Odia language in computer In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and one Harihar Patra applied for the said post. The petitioner and Harihar Patra passed Upasastri from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya having secured 57.9% and 60.8% marks respectively, whereas opposite party No. 4 passed Higher Secondary Examination Certificate from Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa securing 42.8% marks. Harihar Patra having secured highest mark, engagement letter was issued in his favour vide letter No. 2969 dated 24.11.2009, but unfortunately he died on 14.01.2010 Consequentially, the petitioner, being stood second in the merit list, should have been given engagement to the, post of GRS having secured 57.9% marks with qualification of Upasastri. 2.1. Opposite party No. 4, challenging the appointment of Harihar Patra, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18372 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2011 with a direction that if he made a representation to the Collector, Jajpur ventilating his grievance within 10 days from that date, the latter shall dispose of the same after giving a chance of hearing to opposite party No. 4 and the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. In pursuance thereof, the Collector, Jajpur taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Madhusudan Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2010 (1) OLR 22 held that Harihar Patra and the petitioner, who completed Upasastri and were placed in SI. No. 1 and 2 respectively of the merit list, were not eligible for consideration for the post of GRS, and accordingly directed to give engagement to opposite party No. 4 as GRS. Hence this application. 3. Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both Harihar Patra and the petitioner have acquired qualification of Upasastri and secured higher percentage of marks than opposite party No. 4. Harihar Patra having secured highest percentage of marks, engagement order was issued in his favour, but he died prematurely. The petitioner, having stood second in the merit list, is entitled to be engaged as GRS. While considering representation of opposite party No. 4, pursuant to order dated 23.02.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18372 of 2009, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Madhusudan Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2010 (1) OLR 22 , the Collector, Jajpur, vide order dated 31.03.2011 in Annexure-5, came to a conclusion that Upasastri is not equivalent to 10+2 (Higher Secondary), since Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa has not approved the notification placing reliance on Jagadish Kumar Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 109 (2009) CLT 713 : 2019 (Supp. 1) OLR 858, and accordingly denied to engage Harihar Patra and the petitioner in the post of GRS. But, while passing such order, the Collector, Jajpur has lost sight of the fact that Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa had issued notification on 29.06.2009 declaring Upasastri as equivalent to that of 10+2 (Higher Secondary), therefore, the benefit of engagement in the post of GRS should have been extended to the petitioner. More so, neither the judgment passed in Madhusudan Sahoo (supra) nor Jagadish Tripathy (supra) has any application to the present context. It is further contended that so far as other Gram Panchayats of the same district, i.e., Jajpur are concerned, candidates having Upasastri qualification have been engaged as GRS. Therefore, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner amounts to discrimination. 4. Mr. It is further contended that so far as other Gram Panchayats of the same district, i.e., Jajpur are concerned, candidates having Upasastri qualification have been engaged as GRS. Therefore, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner amounts to discrimination. 4. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that guidelines were issued on 25.08.2006 by the Government in Panchayati Raj Department, with regard to engagement of one Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rojgar Sevak) on contractual basis in each Gram Panchayat, which does not have Gram Panchayat Secretary, for smooth maintenance of accounts, data base in the computer and functioning of NREGA works. It was stipulated therein that selection would be made strictly on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 examination, and as such, no equivalent qualification can be taken into consideration. In view of such guidelines, selection to the post of GRS has to be made confining the marks obtained in 10+2 examination but not in Upasastri examination. 5. This Court heard Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties No. 1 and 3; and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Indisputably, an advertisement was issued on 21.07.2007 inviting applications for engagement of GRS from the eligible candidates having 10+2 qualification. It was clearly mentioned therein that preference would be given to the candidates from commerce stream having computer proficiency of "O" Level with use of Odia language in computer. Under the selection criteria, it was clearly indicated that the selection would be made strictly on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 examination and preference would be given to the candidates belonging to concerned G.P. area, then to Panchayat Samiti area and then to the district in case suitable candidates were not available in the G.P. or Block. In the said advertisement, last date of submission of application was indicated as 10.08.2009. The petitioner, one Harihar Patra and opposite party No. 4 applied for the post of GRS Both Harihar Patra and petitioner have acquired Upasastri qualification whereas opposite party No. 4 has acquired 10+2 qualification from CHSE, Orissa. In the said advertisement, last date of submission of application was indicated as 10.08.2009. The petitioner, one Harihar Patra and opposite party No. 4 applied for the post of GRS Both Harihar Patra and petitioner have acquired Upasastri qualification whereas opposite party No. 4 has acquired 10+2 qualification from CHSE, Orissa. Harihar Patra has secured 60.8% of marks, the petitioner has secured 57.9% of marks in Upasastri examination whereas opposite party No. 4 has secured 42.8% marks in 10+2 examination. So, engagement order was issued in favour of Harihar Patra, vide letter No. 2969 dated 24.11.2009, he having secured highest percentage of marks amongst them. Unfortunately, Harihar Patra died prematurely on 14.01.2010. After his death, it is the petitioner who is entitled get engagement order because of his marks secured in Upasastri examination. But, opposite party No. 4, challenging the appointment of Harihar Patra, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18372 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 23.02.2011, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that if opposite party No. 4 made a representation to the Collector, Jajpur ventilating his grievance within 10 days from that date, the latter shall dispose of the same after giving a chance of hearing to opposite party No. 4 and the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. In compliance thereof, the Collector, Jajpur, vide order dated 31.03.2011 in Annexure-5, taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Madhusudan Sahoo, (supra) held that Harihar Patra and the petitioner, who completed Upasastri and were placed at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively of the merit list, were not eligible for consideration for the post of GRS as Upasastri is not equivalent to 10+2 examination, since the same has not been approved by the Council of Higher Secondary Examination, Orissa, and directed opposite party No. 4 to be appointed as GRS. But fact remains, while passing such order, he has lost sight of the fact that CHSE, Orissa had issued a notification on 29.07.2009, which is prior to the last date of submission of application for engagement of GRS, i.e., 10.08.2009 stating that Upasastri course conducted by Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya is equivalent to 10+2 qualification conducted by CHSE, Orissa. Meaning thereby, Upasastri is equivalent to 10+2 qualification. 7. Meaning thereby, Upasastri is equivalent to 10+2 qualification. 7. In Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition the word 'equivalent', has been given the following meaning:- (1) Equal in value, force, amount effect or significance. (2) Corresponding in effect or function; nearly equal; virtually identical. 8. In Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 , referring to Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn. Vol. 15 at P. 157, the word "equivalent" has been defined to mean equal in value, area, volume, force, meaning, or the like; synonym: alike, identical. 9. In Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 3 SCC 129 , the apex Court held the word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning which means that there is some degree of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There is a difference between what is 'equivalent' and what is exact. 10. In view of law discussed above, if equivalency had been granted before the last date of submission of application, the Collector, Jajpur could not have come to a conclusion holding that opposite party No. 4 should be given engagement to the post of GRS relying upon the judgment of this Court in Madhusudan Sahoo, (supra), which is not applicable to the present case, particularly when he has secured less percentage of mark than the petitioner, as well as Harihar Patra, who died prematurely on 14.01.2010. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Collector in order dated 31.03.2011 in Annexure-5 cannot sustain in the eye of law. 11. Apart from the above, the petitioner in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition specifically pleaded as follows:- "8. That it is humbly submits that W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2007 (Madhusudan Sahoo vrs. State of Orissa and others) reported in 2010 (1) OLR 22 the Hon'ble Court relying on the Division Bench decision reported in 109 (2009) CLT 713 (Jagadish Kumar Tripathy vs. State of Orissa) held that Upasastri is not equivalent to 10+2 since council has not approved the notification issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Orissa dated 18th February 1986. 9. 9. That it is humbly submitted that council has approved the notification dated 18th February 1986 vide Notification dated 29th July 2009 recognizing Upasastri equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination, hence decision reported in 109 (2009) CLT 713 (Jagadish Kumar Tripathy vs. State of Orissa) is not in force in view of notification of the council. The copy of notification is annexed herewith as Annexure-7. 10. That it is humbly submits that when the decision reported is not in force in view of the subsequent notification the Collector acted illegally by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner." To this, no specific reply has been given by the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 in their counter affidavit. It is stated in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties No. 1 and 3 as follows: "6. That the averments made in paragraphs-2 to 8 and 10 to 13 of the writ petition need no reply from this deponent as the same are matters on record and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same". 12. A further contention has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that candidates having Upasastri qualification and securing higher percentage of marks have been engaged as GRS under Barchana Block in the very same district vide Annexure-8. Pleadings in paragraph-14 of the writ petition to that effect are extracted hereunder:- "14. That it is pertinent to mention here that in the district of Jaipur number of applicants who have Upasastri qualification have been engaged as GRS under different Grama Panchayat. The copy of information under Right to Information Act is annexed herewith as Annexure-8". In reply to paragraph-14 of the writ petition, opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have stated in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit as follows:- "8. That in reply to paragraph-14 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the averments made in this paragraph are partly correct. It is worthwhile to mention here that after said appointment vide Annexure-8, this Hon'ble Court categorically in the decision reported in 2010 (1) OLR 22 observed that the appointment shall be made as per the Government guidelines and advertisement". From the above, it is clearly established that opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have admitted the factum of giving appointment to the candidates having Upasastri qualification, and thereby they have already acceded that Upasastri is equivalent to 10+2 qualification. From the above, it is clearly established that opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have admitted the factum of giving appointment to the candidates having Upasastri qualification, and thereby they have already acceded that Upasastri is equivalent to 10+2 qualification. Therefore, clear cut discrimination has been made by not giving engagement as GRS to the petitioner, he having secured higher percentage of mark in Upasastri which is equivalent to 10+2. 13. It is pertinent to mention here, opposite party No. 4, having been engaged and allowed to continue, was made a party to the present case. This Court issued notice by registered post with A.D., pursuant to order dated 01.08.2011, and A.D. was returned after valid service from opposite party No. 4. Though, notice as against opposite party No. 4 has been made sufficient, none has entered appearance on his behalf In that view of the matter, it can be safely inferred that opposite party No. 4, despite valid service of notice, did not choose to appear before this Court and he preferred not to contest the proceeding. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Annexure-5 cannot sustain in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Consequentially, engagement of opposite party No. 4 as GRS, who has secured less percentage of mark than the petitioner, is also quashed. As a result, the petitioner, having secured higher percentage of mark and stood second in the merit list, is entitled to get engagement as GRS, since Harihar Patra, who had occupied first position in the merit list, already died. Thereby, opposite party No. 1-CoHector & District Magistrate, Jajpur is directed to issue necessary engagement order in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production/communication of this judgment. 15. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.