ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha. 3. The counsel submits that the matter pertains to the process of recruitment initiated by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for 92 posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officers. The advertisement issued on 06.05.2021 indicated how the marks are to be allotted for each segment of the syllabus. The respondents were unsuccessful in the written examination and they filed the Writ Petition pointing out certain deficiencies in the questions which were set out, in the written examination. 4. The learned Single Judge under the judgment dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure P/11) opined that the written examination conducted by the OPSC on 06.03.2022, had not been conducted in accordance with the prescribed syllabus enclosed with the advertisement. Moreover, the required 20 numbers of questions carrying 1 (one) mark each from each of the units from Unit-(I) to (X), have not been set up. With such conclusion, it was held that the written test was not in accordance with the advertisement and accordingly, after setting aside the selection results of the examination notified on 06.03.2022, the Court ordered for fresh recruitment examination. 5. The State being aggrieved by the decision in the Writ Petition, filed a Writ Appeal but the Division Bench instead of considering the Writ Appeal on merit, dismissed it on the ground of delay of 205 days by placing reliance on State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P. (C) No. 15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021 by the High Court). 6. On merit, the Government counsel submits that the questions for the recruitment test were framed by experts and the questions were also inter-related. Therefore, it is argued that interference by the learned Single Judge with the recruitment test, was not merited. 7. The office report dated 16.01.2025 indicates that although notice was duly served on the respondents, they have chosen to remain absent. 8. Having considered the above contention from the Government counsel, without any opposition from the other side, we feel that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have considered the State’s Writ Appeal on merit instead of dismissing it on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Writ Appeal stands condoned. The Writ Appeal No. 1456 of 2023 is restored. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Writ Appeal stands condoned. The Writ Appeal No. 1456 of 2023 is restored. The High Court is requested to dispose of the Writ Appeal on merit, after affording opportunity to both sides. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With the above, the matter stands disposed of.