JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner challenges the action of the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, for not giving him an order of appointment against the vacant post of a Junior Typist. 2. The case in brief is, the. District Judge, Ganjam, called for applications to fill up 5 posts of Junior Typist, reserved for the scheduled castes and 4 for the scheduled tribes by advertisement dated 30-8-1989 (Annexure-I). After the written examination a merit list of successful candidates was drawn vide Annexure-2 where the Petitioner stood at serial 9. It is claimed by the Petitioner that,though he belongs to the scheduled caste and also a handicapped, the District Judge committed illegality in not appointing him in one of the posts. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Berhampur, it is stated that though the Petitioner belongs to the scheduled castes and also physically handicapped, and had come under one of the reserved categories, yet out of five vacant posts of Junior Typists, four were reserved for the scheduled tribes, but because of the government resolution the posts reserved for the scheduled tribe candidates could not be filed up by the scheduled caste candidates in exchange. This provision came by way of amendment of Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Reservation Vacancies Act, 1992 with effect from 14-2-92. Another stand is taken that he roster points maintained in the office started from serial 41 onwards and the roster point reserved for the handicaps came at point 4 and 69 and thus there was no reserve point after point 41 onwards to give appointments to the candidates in the handicapped category. A third ground is taken that since the Petitioner stood at serial 9, the candidates who have been placed at serial 6 to 8 in the merit list also belong to the scheduled caste category for which the Petitioner's case can not be considered ignoring the case of candidates above him. 4. Having heard Mr. A.S. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Prusty, learned Government Advocate we are of the view that we cannot give any relief to the Petitioner. Mr. Naidu has relied on a decision in the case of Himansu Parida v. District Judge, Bolangir and Anr reported in 82(1996) C.L.T. 585: 1996(II) O.L.R. 372 . 4. Having heard Mr. A.S. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Prusty, learned Government Advocate we are of the view that we cannot give any relief to the Petitioner. Mr. Naidu has relied on a decision in the case of Himansu Parida v. District Judge, Bolangir and Anr reported in 82(1996) C.L.T. 585: 1996(II) O.L.R. 372 . In the said case this Court held that the merit list prepared after the examination is to remain in force till result of the next examination is published but not for one year only. But we are of the view that this decision for the present is of no assistance to the Petitioner the reason being as follows. 5. Admittedly the Petitioner belongs to the scheduled castes category and also is handicapped and there is a roster point for his appointment as indicated in the counter-affidavit. Further as per the provisions of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act. 1992 he cannot be given appointment unless the vacancies reserved for the scheduled tribes are de-reserved and government accords permission to fill up such vacancies which situation would not arise in the present case until the government has taken a decision. Thirdly there are other candidates at serial 6 to 8 above the Petitioner who also belong to the same scheduled caste category. We do not know whether in the meantime those scheduled caste candidates have been given appointment against any vacancy. Therefore we do not find any justification to issue a writ in the nature of a direction to the District Judge for appointment of the Petitioner. 6. However considering the fact that the Petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category as well as a handicapped candidate and that he stands at serial 9 of the merit list and since according to the decision of this Court that a merit list is to remain in force till the result of the succeeding examination is published: we dispose of this writ petition by observing that so long this list has not lost its force the District Judge is free to give an appointment to the Petitioner as permissible in law and without prejudice to the interest of any other candidates senior to the Petitioner. S. Chatterji, A.C. J. 7. I agree. Writ petition disposed of.