HIMANSU PARIDA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inaction of the opp. parties in not issuing the order of appointment for the post of Typist in spite of three vacancies in contravention of Sub -rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Mothod of Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1969 (in short, 'the Rules'), is the subject -matter of challenge in the present writ application at the instance of the petitioner.

(2.) IN response to an advertisement issued by opp. party No. 1, the District Judge, Bolangir, for recruitment to the post of Typists and Stenographers etc. the petitioner submitted an application with all details and as he fulfilled the required eligibility criteria he was permitted to appear in the written recruitment examination and being successful in the said examination he was called to appear in the typing and viva voce test in which he successfully qualified by obtaining 3rd position in the merit list of successful typists. Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the merit list were appointed on 17 -1 -1994 and 22 -5 -1994 respectively and though there were three more posts in the cadre of Junior Typist lying vacant, yet no steps are being taken to fill up the same and to issue the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction he submitted a representation on 5 -6 -1995, but that has not been paid heed to. It has also been averred by the petitioner that in case of Stenographers serial Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on 17 -1 -1994 and 20 -5 -1994 and serial No. 3 in the merit lists of Stenographers was appointed in the month of June, 1995. The grievance as agitated is that though the list from the Stenographers is being respected and carried out and vacancies are filled up in the cadre of Stenographers, but similar steps are not being taken so far as Typists are concerned, though the list of successful candidates is still valid. With the aforesaid factual averments the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus.

(3.) MR . C. A, Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the factual position being almost admitted, the only question remains for determination is whether the merit list prepared lapsed by efflux of time or would remain valid till the next examination and whether a candidate whose name finds place in the merit list can be appointed in the vacancies which arise during the said period. To support his submission he has taken us through the relevant rules, namely, Rules 4 and 6 and Clause 6 of Appendix. A of the Rules and has submitted that the stand of the opp. parties is absolutely incorrect. Mr. B.L.N. Swamy, the learned Government Advocate has relied on the same rules and has suomitted that an interpretation of the rules leads to a singular conclusion that the list does not remain valid after one year and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is unjustified. The rival contentions need careful and anxious consideration.