JUDGMENT : Dipak Misra, J. - 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. A return has been filed by the opp. With the aforesaid factual averments the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 3. A return has been filed by the opp. parties and the stand taken therein is that the vacancies in question have arisen at different points of time after expiry, of one year, from the date of publication of the result of the examination and the merit list having lapsed the question of consideration of the case of the petitioner does not arise. With regard to the dealing with the representation of the petitioner it has been asserted in the counter-affidavit that the District Judge being the administrative authority of the District has rejected his representation on 20th June, 1995. on consideration of the facts and circumstances and keeping in view that it was not incumbent on the part of the authority to fill up the post to adjust the petitioner. With regard to the appointment of Stenographer the stand of the opp. parties is that as the service of a Stenographer is badly necessary the same was filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate who was in the waiting list subject to the condition that he has to succeed in the next recruitment examination. Reliance is placed on Rules 4 and 6 and Clauses (1) to (6) of Appendix-A, and it has been asserted that as the vacancies fell after expiry of one year the petitioner has no right in law to claim appointment to the post of Typist. 4. 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. 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. 5. To appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar it is appropriate to refer to the relevant rules : "R. 4. Method of recruitment: Subject to other provisions made in these rules recruitment to the posts in the ministerial service of the District Court and Subordinate Courts shall be made by the following, methods, namely : (a) in respect of Lower Division Clerks, Copyists and Grade III Stenographers--by competitive examination in accordance with Rule 6 and (b) in respect of other posts--by promotion in accordance with Rule 10, R. 5. xx xx xx R. 6. Competitive Examination : (1) Recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerks, Typists and Copyists in the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts of each district shall be made by a competitive examination to be held once a year. Recruitment to the posts of Grade- HI Stenographers shall be made by a competitive examination, whenever necessary. xxx xxx xxx (5) In case a vacancy occurs after the list of successful candidates is exhausted and before the announcement of the result of the next examination, such vacancy may be filled up by a successful candidate of the previous years ; provided that his age does not exceed the maximum limit laid down in Sub-rule ( ) and failing that by any candidate who possesses the requisite qualification and is within the prescribed age-limit laid down in Sub-rule(3). In the latter event, the appointment of a candidate shall be made temporarily and shall not continue beyond the date when result of the next year's examination is declared, unless he passes the said examination. Clause 6 of Appendix-A : The District Judge shall prepare a list of successful candidates in order of merit and communicate the results of the examination and appoint candidates in the vacancies that have occurred or may occur during the period of one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination. Clause 6 of Appendix-A : The District Judge shall prepare a list of successful candidates in order of merit and communicate the results of the examination and appoint candidates in the vacancies that have occurred or may occur during the period of one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination. The decision of the District Judge as to the result of the examination shall be final and in no case shall be liable to be challenged." 6. We find, though there is no specific provision that the list would remain valid for one year but there is no ilota of doubt, on reading of the rules in the harmonious manner, that the list would remain valid for one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination. But here we may advert to a judgment of this Court in OJC No. 10108/93 disposed of on 19-9-1994 (Madan Mohan Rout and Ors. v. Dist. Judge. Sundargarh). Before adverting to the ratio of the said judgment, we may state here that a letter which was issued by the Registrar (Administration) of this Court to all the' District Judges not to hold recruitment examination in respect of L. D. Cs., Typists and Copyists as postulated in Rule 6 (1) and (2) and Clause (1) of Appendix unless there is likelihood of vacancy to the extent of at least five arising in a year. It is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said letter: "In inviting attention to Rule 6(1) and (2) and Clause 1 of Appendix of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Services) Rules 1969 I am directed to say that the Court are of the view that the yearly recruitment examination in respect of lower Division Clerks, Typists and Copyists as postulated therein should not be held unless there is the like lihood of vacancy to the extent of at least five arising in any year.'' 7. Relying on the aforesaid communication and reading it in harmony with the Rules in vogue this Court in Madan Mohan Rout's case (supra), held as follows: "A comprehensive reading of the aforequoted rules and the aforementioned instructions issued by this Court means that In the matter of recruitment examination the factors to be taken into consideration prior to issue of such instruction on 12-9-1986 became different subsequent to that date. ............There is of course no specific provision in 1969 Rules that a merit list so prepared and published shall remain valid for one year but on a conspectus of the aforesaid rules there is hardly any room for doubt that the merit list was to remain valid for one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination, but after issue of the aforesaid instructions by this Court, it cannot be legitimately said that a merit list so prepared shall remain valid only for one year because it excludes the possibility of holding recruitment examination each and every year. In our view, such a merit list published subsequent to the issue of the letter, Annexure-6 shall remain valid until publication of the merit list prapared for the next examination. 8. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of this Court, it is irrefragably clear that the merit list published vide Annexure-3 remains valid till the publication of the result of the next examination. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that an advertisement has already been made for conducting recruitment examination for Junior Typist on 10-11-1995 and applications have been received and processed and date of examination was yet to be notified but that does not affect the validity of the list. The stand of the opp. parties that the fist is valid for one year is not correct and acceptable. As per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules in case the vacancy occurs after the fist of successful candidates is exhausted and before the announcement of the result of the next examination, such vacancy can be filled up by a succcessful candidate of the previous years provided his age had not exceeded the maximum limit as laid down in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. 9. Now we may advert to the question of grant of relief to the present petitioner. 9. Now we may advert to the question of grant of relief to the present petitioner. We have already held that the list remains valid till the result of the next examination is published. We find from the counter-affidavit that the case of the petitioner was not considered as the vacancies had fallen after one year and the authorities were under the impression mat the merit list had lapsed by efflux of time. We see no justification that aspiration of a successful candidate should be marred in this manner. The only impediment (the validity of the list) being clear and the vacancy having arisen and being in existence we are of the considered view that the petitioner should be conferred with the benefit of appointment if he satisfies the other requirements as stipulated in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. 10. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. S. Chatterji, A.C.J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed