JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The Petitioner-State and its functionary, who were Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 before the Tribunal, have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the common order dated 29.09.2015 passed in O.A. No.3759(C) of 2012 and batch, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has directed the Petitioners to reconsider the grievance of Opposite Party No.1 for his absorption as Rural Labour Inspector by amending/relaxing the Odisha Assistant Labour Officers and Rural Labour Inspectors Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (in short “Rules, 2001”). 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that elimination of child labour is the prime consideration of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, which has been viewed with not only as the concept of whole nation but also with the global concern. As the population increases at an alarming rate, as more and more children are born year after year, and as more and more children enter the world of work at their school going age (5-14), this becomes a matter of grave anxiety and concern to the policy formulators and the framers of law at the national level. The Government, as a matter of principle, takes steps for release of these children from hazardous work and for their rehabilitation-physical, emotional & economic through education with a project approach. Accordingly, National Policy on child labour was formulated in August, 1987 and the National Child Labour Projects were conceptualized and launched around the same time. These initiatives, which were rather on a small scale in the beginning, were subsequently reinforced and strengthened by the announcement made by the former Prime Minister on 15.08.1994 for the total liberation of all children (5-14), who are employed in hazardous work and for their physical and emotional rehabilitation through a composite package called National Child Labour Projects, which are to be administered by the District Child Labour Project Society registered as such under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This was carried out due to judgment dated 10.12.1996 passed by the apex Court in Civil Writ Petition No.465 of 1986 (M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others). Thereby, it has created a new urgency and seriousness of concern in regard to elimination of child labour by the Central Government, State Governments, NGOs and all others, who are concerned about this social malady. Thereby, it has created a new urgency and seriousness of concern in regard to elimination of child labour by the Central Government, State Governments, NGOs and all others, who are concerned about this social malady. With a view to fulfilling the constitutional mandate, a major programme was launched on 15th August, 1994 for withdrawing children working in hazardous occupations and rehabilitating them through special schools. As a follow up, a series of steps has been taken by the Government. Consequentially, a High Powered Body, the National Authority for the Elimination of Child Labour (NAECL) was constituted on 26th September, 1994 under the Chairmanship of Labour Minister with a view to formulating policies and programmes for elimination of child labour, monitor the progress of implementation of programmes, projects and Schemes for elimination of child labour and to coordinate the implementation of child labour related projects of the various sister Ministries of the Government of India (to ensure convergence of services for the benefit of the families of child labour). To give effect to this announcement, 64 area based projects were sanctioned (in addition to 12 continuing projects) under the existing Scheme of NCLP. Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour issued a letter dated 15.07.1995 floating a Scheme called “National Child Labour Project”, which was placed before the Workshop scheduled to be held on 13th & 14th September, 1995 to finalize the district projects for eliminating the child labour in hazardous occupations. In view of such Scheme, a survey was conducted, which revealed that about seven lakhs child labourers were engaged in different types of occupations in the State, which resulted in their deprivation of education and being subjected to distress conditions. Basing on the above survey, the State of Odisha submitted 16 projects before the workshop, which was held on 13th & 14th September, 1995. All the projects were approved by the Government of India. Since the Collectors are to play the major roles in implementation of those projects, the State Government issued certain guidelines to the Collectors for successful implementation of the projects. Amongst other things, it was provided that for smooth management of the projects, there shall be two Field Officers, one Accountant-cum-Clerk, one Stenographer, one Driver and Peon. Since the Collectors are to play the major roles in implementation of those projects, the State Government issued certain guidelines to the Collectors for successful implementation of the projects. Amongst other things, it was provided that for smooth management of the projects, there shall be two Field Officers, one Accountant-cum-Clerk, one Stenographer, one Driver and Peon. They were directed to be appointed by the Project Directors with the approval of the Chairman for the purpose of enforcement of laws relating to child labour and improvement in the economic condition of the parents. Further, it owes responsibility for implementation of the programme by creating public awareness against child labour system. To give effect to such Scheme, the Labour Commissioner, Orissa issued a circular on 17.11.1995 prescribing guidelines for recruitment of staff for the NCLP. Pursuant to such guidelines, the concerned Project Directors placed requisition to the concerned Employment Exchanges, but as the concerned Employment Exchanges were not able to sponsor the names having the required qualification, the requisition was placed before the University Employment Exchanges and on names being sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchanges, the committee conducted the test and interview and made a recommendation to the Project Directors, who, with the approval of the Chairman of Project Society, issued orders of appointments to the candidates recommended. Opposite Party No.1 is one of such candidates, who has been engaged as Field Officer and has been discharging the duty till date, even his performance and efficiency are being reviewed by the Chairman of the Project Society. Initially, he was paid consolidated pay of Rs.2500/-, which was later on revised to Rs.4000/-per month w.e.f. April, 2001, which was again revised to Rs.8000/-per month w.e.f. April 2011 and, as such, revision of pay has also been granted to Opposite Party No.1. 2.3. While he was so continuing, he became overaged/age barred for entry into Government service. The qualification prescribed for the post of Rural Labour Inspector is akin to the qualification prescribed for engagement of Field Officer. Opposite Party No.1 was hopeful that his case will be considered, but even though he along with some others applied for the said posts, none of them were allowed to participate in the process of selection, nor steps were taken to absorb them as Rural Labour Inspectors. Consequentially, he filed representation before the authority. Opposite Party No.1 was hopeful that his case will be considered, but even though he along with some others applied for the said posts, none of them were allowed to participate in the process of selection, nor steps were taken to absorb them as Rural Labour Inspectors. Consequentially, he filed representation before the authority. Having come to know that 30 posts of Rural Labour Inspectors are lying vacant and the same are to be filled up by following due procedure, as prescribed under Rules, 2001, and those posts are to be filled up in both by way of direct recruitment (50%) and by promotion (50%) from amongst the staff of the Labour Directorate, as Opposite Party No.1 had possessed prescribed qualification, he made representation on 03.12.2011 to the Government of India in Ministry of Labour and Employment, the Chief Secretary, Odisha as well as Labour Commissioner, Odisha ventilating his grievances for absorption, but no action was taken. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1, along with others, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15829 of 2011 seeking direction to appoint/absorb him as Rural Labour Inspector/Assistant Labour Officer. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 26.09.2011, directing the Petitioners to consider the representation and take a decision within a period of two months. In compliance thereof, the grievance of Opposite Party No.1 was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Rules, 2001 for direct absorption of Field Officers working under the NCLP in the post of Rural Labour Inspectors/Assistant Labour Officers, vide letter dated 04.02.2012. 2.4. Assailing the said order dated 04.02.2012, Opposite Party No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3759(C) of 2012 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 29.09.2015, disposed of the said O.A. stating, inter alia that as Opposite Party No.1 and other similarly situated persons have been conferred with the statutory assignment, they are eligible to be absorbed as Rural Labour Inspectors by relaxing or amending the relevant Recruitment Rules and accordingly directed the Petitioners to reconsider the grievance of Opposite Party No.1 along with others for absorption as Rural Labour Inspectors by amending/relaxing the Rules, 2001 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Mr. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the direction given by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law, more particularly Rules, 2001. More so, Opposite Party No.1 has been appointed as Field Officer under the NCLP and, as such, he is not a regular employee under the State Level Directorate and also not fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule-3 of the Rules, 2001. As such, the direction given by the Tribunal by resorting to relaxation power contained in Rule-13 of the Rules, 2001 is not legally tenable, as the same is to be exercised on circumstance only when the State Government considers it necessary to do so for public interest. Apart from the same, it is contended that Rule13 of Rules, 2001 is applicable to the employees, who are already in State Directorate but not to an outsider like that of Opposite Party No.1, who has been engaged under the Project. As such, relaxation power cannot be exercised in a whimsical manner. It is further contended that on the one hand the Tribunal observed that it is not competent to issue direction to the State Government either to amend Rules or relax the Rules, and on the other hand directs to relax or amend the Rules and reconsider the grievance of Opposite Party No.1, which is absolutely misconceived one and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that NCLP, which is a society, is still continuing, under which Opposite Party No.1 has been engaged and continuing in service. Thereby, application of Rules, 2001, by invoking the relaxation power under Rule-13 cannot and could not arise in favour of Opposite Party No.1. More so, Rule-3 of Rules, 2001 specifies with regard to method of recruitment. Therefore, the persons, who have been appointed under Rules, 2001 having requisite qualification under Rule-3, in their case relaxation power under Rule-13 of Rules, 2001 may apply, but not in respect of the persons, who have appointed under the Scheme floated by the Central Government. More so, Rule-3 of Rules, 2001 specifies with regard to method of recruitment. Therefore, the persons, who have been appointed under Rules, 2001 having requisite qualification under Rule-3, in their case relaxation power under Rule-13 of Rules, 2001 may apply, but not in respect of the persons, who have appointed under the Scheme floated by the Central Government. It is further contended that admittedly pursuant to the Scheme floated by the Ministry of Labour, the State Government has fixed guidelines for such engagement, pursuant to which Opposite Party No.1 has been engaged as Field Officer. Therefore, he cannot be absorbed under Rules, 2001 against permanent vacancy without following due procedure. Thereby, vide order dated 29.09.2015, the direction so issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3759(C) of 2012 is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law, which has to be quashed. 4. Mr. S.B. Jena, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1, fairly admitted that Opposite Party No.1 has been appointed under the Scheme and has been discharging his duty, but contended that he is continuing from 1995 and in the meantime he has completed more than 25 years. In the event of closure of the Scheme, he will be placed out of employment and, as such, he is discharging the duty and responsibility akin to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. Therefore, he should be absorbed as per Rules, 2001. Consequentially, the direction given by the Tribunal to reconsider the case of Opposite Party No.1 by amending/relaxing Rules, 2001, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is further contended that Opposite Party No.1, on being duly sponsored by the University Employment Exchange, having been appointed by following due procedure of selection conducted by duly constituted selection committee in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government, should not be denied regular absorption under Rules, 2001. It is further contended that Opposite Party No.1, on being duly sponsored by the University Employment Exchange, having been appointed by following due procedure of selection conducted by duly constituted selection committee in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government, should not be denied regular absorption under Rules, 2001. It is further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 and similarly circumstanced persons were being paid consolidated pay of Rs.2500/-per month, which was later on revised to 4000/-per month w.e.f. April, 2001 and again revised to Rs.8000/-per month w.e.f. April 2011 and Rs.12,000/-only w.e.f. 01.01.2016, and it is difficult for them to manage their families with such paltry sum of money, when they are discharging the statutory responsibility, pursuant to the notifications issued by the Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department during March 1996 to June 1996, one under Section 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 (16.03.1996) the other one under Section 6(1) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966 (on 21.06.1996), another under Section 9)1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (27.06.1996) and the last one Section 19 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (27.06.1996) in appointing the Project Directors and Field Officers as Inspectors under the above Acts having jurisdiction in their respective NCLP districts. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 should be absorbed on regular basis by relaxing/amending the Rules, 2001 and extended with all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him. Thereby, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error apparent on the face of the records so as to cause interference of this Court. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in B.N. Nagarajan v State of Karnataka, 1979 (4) SCC 507 ; Secretary State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and State of Karnakata v. M.L. Keshari, 2011 SCC (L & S) 2587. 5. Mr. M.K. Pati, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for Opposite Party No.2, contended that the Government of India framed a Policy to eliminate the child labour from the country. Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour and Employment has been implementing the central Sector Plan Scheme i.e. National Child Labour Project Scheme since 1987. 5. Mr. M.K. Pati, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for Opposite Party No.2, contended that the Government of India framed a Policy to eliminate the child labour from the country. Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour and Employment has been implementing the central Sector Plan Scheme i.e. National Child Labour Project Scheme since 1987. The target group for the Scheme is (i) all the children workers belong to the age of 14 years in the identified target area, (ii) adolescent workers belong to the age of 18 years in the target area engaged in hazardous occupations/processes and (iii) families of child workers in the identified target area. The entire project is implemented through a registered society. The project societies are required to conduct survey to identify children working in any occupations and process and to take necessary steps to bring those children into mainstream. It is also contended that to achieve the goal, volunteers are to be engaged for the project society office and they will be paid only a consolidated amount of honorarium for their services. It is further contended that the volunteers are not engaged by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, but by the District Project Society or the implementing agency. As such, there is no provision in the NCLP Scheme for regularization of the services of volunteers and others engaged in the society as their services are voluntary in nature and in no case be considered as permanent. The part-time volunteers are paid honorarium. The main criteria for selection of volunteers, is their commitment to the cause of community services. Therefore, the claim of Opposite Party No.1 to regularize his services cannot have any justification. 6. This Court heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioners; Mr. S.B. Jena, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1; and Mr. M.K. Pati, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 through hybrid mode and perused documents. 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. 7. S.B. Jena, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1; and Mr. M.K. Pati, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 through hybrid mode and perused documents. 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. 7. For just and proper adjudication of the case, relevant provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India are quoted below: “Article-24: Which deals with “Prohibition of employment of children in factories etc” provides that no child below the age fourteen years shall be employed in work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Article-39 provides that the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: Xxx xxx xxx (e) that the health and strength of workers, mean and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. (f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Article-45 provides that the State shall endeavor to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.” 8. To give effect to the aforesaid constitutional mandate, a major programme was launched on 15.08.1994 for withdrawing children working in hazardous occupations and rehabilitating them through Special Schools and the same was carried out because of the judgment of the apex Court in M.C. Mehta (supra). Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India issued guidelines on 15.07.1995 for the Scheme called “National Child Labour Project (NCLP) and to give effect to such guidelines, the Government of Odisha in Labour & Employment Department issued guidelines on 09.10.1995, wherein Clause-2.1 states with regard to constitution of project society and its registration. 9. There is no iota of doubt that Opposite Party No.1 has been engaged as Field Officer under the NCLP Scheme floated by the Government of India and the guidelines issued by the State Government. 9. There is no iota of doubt that Opposite Party No.1 has been engaged as Field Officer under the NCLP Scheme floated by the Government of India and the guidelines issued by the State Government. He is continuing in the said post and at times he has to discharge certain statutory responsibilities and he was imparted training and after completion, he has discharged various statutory functions under the Act and Rules applicable to him. As he has been continuing since 1995 till date, he along with others made representation for their absorption against 50% quota meant for promotion from amongst the staff of the Labour Directorate as per the Rules, 2001. As he has possessed requisite qualification and has been appointed following due procedure of recruitment, he approached the Development Commissioner, Orissa for absorption against the post of Rural Labour Inspector by amending the Rules, 2001. The same having not been considered, he along with others approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15829 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2011 directing the Petitioners to consider the representation and take a decision thereon within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. In compliance thereof, the Authority rejected the representation, against which Opposite Party No.1 filed O.A. No. 3759 (C) of 2012 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 29.09.2015, though took note of the fact that there is no provision in the Rules, 2001 for direct absorption of Opposite Party No.1 in the post of Field Officer or Rural Assistant Labour Officer, but directed the Petitioners to consider the grievance of Opposite Party No.1 for absorption as Rural Assistant Labour Inspector by amending/relaxing the Rules, 2001. 10. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Odisha is pleased to make the Rules to regulate the Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of persons appointed to the posts of Assistant Labour Officers and Rural Labour Inspectors called “Odisha Assistant Labour Officers’ and Rural Labour Inspectors’ Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. Part II of the said Rules deals with recruitment. Rule-3 thereof prescribes method of recruitment, which reads as follows:- “3. Part II of the said Rules deals with recruitment. Rule-3 thereof prescribes method of recruitment, which reads as follows:- “3. Method or recruitment – Recruitment to the post of Assistant Labour Officer and Rural Labour Inspector shall be made by the following methods, namely: (a) By direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Labour Officer and Rural Labour Inspector to the extent of 50 per cent through competitive examination by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission; (b) By promotion to the extent of 50per cent of vacancies arising every year in the rank of Assistant Labour Officer from among the Rural Labour Inspectors who have put in atleast 5 years service in the said post on the 1st day of January of the year in which Selection Board meets, having the qualification of Degree in Bachelor of Arts /Science/ Commerce from a recognized University and Degree/Diploma from a recognized Institution in- I. Industrial Relations and Personnel Management; or II. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations; or III. Labour Welfare /Labour Law; or IV. Management in Business Administration (with specialization in H.R.D.), or V. Human Resource Management; and (c) by promotion to the extent of 50% of the vaccines arising every year in the rank of Rural Labour Inspector from among the suitable employees of Group ‘C’ Service working under the Directorate of Labour Commissioner, Odisha having a minimum in Bachelor of Arts or science or Commerce from a recognised University. NOTE-While filling up the promotional vacancy in the rank of Rural Labour Inspector preference shall be given to those having Degree or Diploma from a recognised University in- (i) Labour Welfare/ Labour Law; or (ii) Personnel Management and Industrial Relation; or (iii)Industrial Relations and Personnel Management; or (iv)Human Resources Management; or (v)Management in Business Administration (with specialization in H.R.D.)” Rule-4 deals with direct recruitment wherein power has been vested with the Commission to conduct the competitive examination ordinarily once in a year for direct recruitment and in the month of October of each year, the Labour Commissioner, Odisha, with prior approval of the Government shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment in the coming year and intimate the same to the Commission and on receipt of the intimation, the Commission shall take steps for direct recruitment. Rules-5 & 6 prescribe eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Labour Officer and Rural Labour Inspector respectively. Rules-5 & 6 prescribe eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Labour Officer and Rural Labour Inspector respectively. Rule-7 deals with selection of candidates by the Commission by taking reservation under Rule-8, whereas Rule-9 deals with constitution of selection board. Part-III deals with Probation and Confirmation under Rules-10 & 11 respectively. Part-IV states Seniority and Increment whereas Part-V deals with Relaxation and Interpretation under Rules-13 and 14 respectively. Rule-13 reads as follows:- “13. Relaxation-The Government may if considered necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, by order, reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of employees.” 11. In view of rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which is statutory one, the procedure has been envisaged with regard to recruitment/appointment of the Rural Labour Inspector and the Assistant Labour Officer. Even though Opposite Party No.1 has been engaged as Field Officer under the project, he cannot directly be absorbed under Rules, 2001. Even taking into consideration his long service, no right has been accrued in his favour to get absorption under Rules, 2001. As such, the Scheme is very clear that he cannot be considered for regular appointment and absorption under the State authorities as per the Rules by invoking relaxation clause envisaged under Rule-13. Relaxation means, rigors of a particular rule slackened in its application to a given case. Therefore, claim of Opposite Party No.1 for absorption under Rules, 2001 is absolutely misconceived one and, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law, even though he has performed certain statutory duties under different acts, as mentioned above. 12. It is nobody’s case that Opposite Party No.1 has been appointed under Rules, 2001. It is admitted case of all the parties that he has been appointed under NCLP Scheme floated by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, pursuant to guidelines issued by the State Government. 13. The judgments of the apex Court in Uma Devi and M.L. Keshari (supra), reference to which has been made by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, have no application to the present case. Meaning thereby, the appointment to the post of Rural Labour Inspector/Assistant Labour Officer is governed under Rules, 2001. 13. The judgments of the apex Court in Uma Devi and M.L. Keshari (supra), reference to which has been made by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, have no application to the present case. Meaning thereby, the appointment to the post of Rural Labour Inspector/Assistant Labour Officer is governed under Rules, 2001. As has been discussed above in regard to the Rules, 2001, it is made clear that specific qualification and procedure have been prescribed under the Rules, 2001 for such appointment. May it be the Opposite Party No.1 claims to have discharged certain statutory duty and responsibility, that ipso facto cannot accrue any right on him for regularization/absorption in service under Rules, 2001. As a consequence thereof, direction given by the Tribunal to the Petitioners to take steps for absorption of Opposite Party No.1 by amending/relaxing the Rules, 2001, cannot have any justification. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by issuing such direction without taking into consideration the implication of Rules, 2001 vis-à-vis the appointment of Opposite Party No.1. 14. More so, since Opposite Party No.1 has been appointed under the Scheme, no right has been accrued in his favour for his absorption as Rural Labour Inspector/Assistant Labour Officer, as his recruitment has not been made in terms of Rules, 2001, as has been held by the apex Court in a catena of judgments that appointment/engagement de hors the rules is illegal even if Opposite Party No.1 has been appointed by following a process of selection, i.e., in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Government, but not in conformity with the Rules. Therefore, question of invoking Rule-13 of the Rules, 2001 does not arise in case of Opposite Party No.1. As a consequence thereof, the direction given by the Tribunal for absorption of Opposite Party No.1 as Rural Labour Inspector/ Assistant Labour Officer by relaxing or amending the Rules, 2001 does not arise. 15. In the above view of the matter, the common order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.3759(C) of 2012 and batch, namely, O.A. No.2691(C) of 2013 to O.A. No.2702(C) of 2013 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. S.K. MISHRA, J. - I agree