RABI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cleavage of decisions between two co-ordinate Benches, necessitated the latter Division Bench to refer the matter to the Full Bench. The reasons set forth in point of reference are culled out in paragraph 12. The same are reproduced below:

(2.) Interpreting sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts'Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (in short the "Rules"), a Division Bench of this Court in case Himanshu Parida v. District Judge, Balasore, 1996 82 CutLT 585 came to hold that the merit list published remains valid till the publication of the result of the next examination. In case the vacancy occurs after the list of successful candidates is exhausted and before the announcement of the result of the next examination, such vacancy can be filled up by a successful candidate of the previous years provided his age had not exceeded the maximum limit as laid down in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6.

(3.) The same rule was the subject-matter of interpretation in the case of Pradipta Kumar Samanta v. State of Orissa and others (OJC No. 632 of 1996, decided on 12-12-1996). The Bench came to hold that the number of posts which was in existence on the date of advertisement can only be filled up and subsequent posts which may be available due to fresh sanction or otherwise cannot be filled up from the select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement unless there are exceptional grounds and that too in public interest.