The authority to issue recruitment advertisements for Village Agricultural Workers lies solely with the Director of Agriculture, and any deviation renders the process unlawful.

JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. All these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir on 04.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Village Agricultural Worker (VAW) on contractual basis in the Revenue District of Bolangir. Further prayer has been made to quash the order passed by the Director of Agriculture & Food Production on 25.10.2013 in rejecting the claim for relaxation of the age and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 to issue a corrigendum in terms of the order passed by this Court in its judgment reported in 2008 (2) OLR ( Sudhir Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha ) and subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 18594/2008. Since the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions that Director of Agricultural and Food Production when issued an advertisement on 18.05.2008 inviting applications to fill up vacant posts of VAW and lady VAW on contractual basis in different districts of the State, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008. This Court vide its order dtd. 14.08.2008, while quashing the advertisement disposed of the writ petition inter alia with the following order:-

"We are not on the question whether the petitioner will be selected or not. The entire dispute revolves round the question whether the Rules framed by the Government and notified on 11th February, 1981 and amended thereafter, are applicable to the candidates for appointment against the aforesaid post on contractual basis. True, the appointment is contractual, but in the contractual appointment also it is expected that the recruitment authority should follow the rules that have been framed by the Government. The counter affidavit absolutely does not meet our query; on the other hand, the Joint Director has tried to justify the violation of the Rules. However, when the Rules framed by the State Government provide for giving preference to the fit candidates for the post of VAW/LVAW that is bound to be followed, be it regular or contractual. The authorities cannot go beyond the scope and ambit of the Rules with a plea that appointments are not regular but contractual because in the present days scenario, regular appointments have been exception; contractual appointments are the rule of the day.

The rules framed by the Government, if not followed by its own authorities, will ultimately lead to conclusion, the advantage of which should be taken by the dishonest officials and unscrupulous candidates. In a case of similar nature (W.P.(C) No.7833/2007 disposed of on 8.7.2008) this Court while dealing with the provision of Section 3(d) of the O.R.V Act has observed that the provision of the O.R.V. Act is also applicable in respect of contractual employment in the Government or in the Governmental organizations, as the case may be.

We are satisfied that the rules that have been framed by the Government, have not been followed and the advertisement has not been made in consonance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Rules framed by the Government, i.e., Recruitment and Training of Village Agricultural Workers Rules, 1981 and amended vide notification dated 24.06.1991, are applicable to the cases of recruitment of VAW/LVAW on contractual basis.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The advertisement in Annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid e