KAMAL KUMAR GOCHHAYAT Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to an advertisement issued by the District Judge, Cuttack on November 11, 1992 inviting applications for filling up 15 posts of Junior Clerks (9 for S. T. and 6 for S.C.) and 4 posts of Junior Typists (3 for S.T. and 1 for S.C.), both the petitioners applied for the posts of Junior Clerks, appeared at the selection test and were empanelled at serial Nos. 21 and 24 in the merit list prepared for the purpose. The petitioners have not been appointed inasmuch as sufficient number of posts have not been filled up.

(2.) The petitioners have filed this writ application claiming that the merit list prepared in 1996 remains valid till the announcement of the result of next recruitment examination and as such they are entitled to be appointed if the District Judge, Cuttack proceeds to fill up any post of Junior Assistant in his judgesbip. A Division Bench of this Court in Himansu Parida v. District Judge, Bolangir and another in 1996 (II) O. L. R. 372 expressly held that the merit list prepared in an examination for appointment in the ministerial services of the District Courts and Subordinate Courts remains valid till announcement of the result of the nest examination. The Division Bench relied upon Rule 6, sub-rule (5) of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions cf Service) Rules, 1969 (in short 'the Rules') to pronounce the said decision, Rule 6, sub-rule (5) of the aforesaid Rules is quoted below :

(3.) Referring to the language of Rule 6(5) of the Rules, Mr. Nanda, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that the said sub-rule does not speak of appointment from an existing panel, but it permits the appointing authority to appoint from un-exhausted previous panel. The said submission cannot be accepted. If persons from a panel previous to the last panel can be appointed temporarily even in vacancies arising after exhaustion of the current panel, there is no reason why persons from unexhausted current panel cannot be appointed. The purpose of the rule is to. enable the appointing authority to temporarily appoint an empanelled person in any new or existing vacancy. The Division Bench in Himansu Parida's case (supra) has already construed the said Rule 6(5) of the Rules and held that the merit list remains valid till the publication of the result of the next examination.