JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - 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 Vs. District Judge and Another, 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 : "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 III Stenographers shall be made by a competitive examina tion, whenever necessary xx xx xx (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 (3) 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 bayond the date when result of the next year's examination is declared, unless he passes the said examination." It will appear from the said Rule that the panel remains valid till announcement of the result of the next examination and an empanelled person is eligible to be appointed even in vacancies which arise after the preparation of the panel. According to the said sub-rule, if an existing panel/list is exhausted and a vacancy arises thereafter, left out persons from the previous panel can also be appointed temporarily provided they have not exceeded the prescribed age. 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. 4. The Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (1996 S.C.C. (L & S) 934) has said that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be stated for clear vacancies and for anticipated vacancies, but not for future vacancies. 4. The Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (1996 S.C.C. (L & S) 934) has said that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be stated for clear vacancies and for anticipated vacancies, but not for future vacancies. Relying upon the said decision another Division Bench of this Court in Pradipta Kttmar Samanta v. State of Orissa and others ( In O. J. C. No. 632/96 decided on 12-12-1996) held that : "Thus, the position of law is very clear 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 tofresh 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." On the basis of the said judgment the Registry of the High Court issued instructions to the District and Subordinate Courts not to till up any post beyond the number mentioned in the advertisement. In view of the said instruction, the District Judge, Cuttack is not appointing any body from the waiting list. 5. In the cases decided by the Supreme Court there was no express statutory rule indicating validity period of the panel and permitting appointment to vacancies which arise after the advertisements As a general principle Supreme Court in Prem Singh's case (supra) has laid down : -- "From the above discussion of the case-law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the court may not, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case," Even the said decision says that the State can deviate from the said general principle by taking a policy decision in that behalf. 6. Rules and Regulations framed by the State Government reflect its policy and intention. Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1969 contains an express provisions enabling the appointing authority to fill up temporarily a vacancy which arises even after selection till publication of the result of the next selection test. Unfortunately, attention of the Division Bench which decided Pradipta Kumar Samanta's case (supra) and the connected writ applications was not drawn to the 'aforesaid Rule 6(5) and the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Himansu Panda (supra). 7. In view of the said express rule and the judgment of the Division Bench in Himansu Parida on the specific point, if the appointing authority in Subordinate Courts intends to fill up temporarily a vacancy arising even after selection test, he may appoint a person from the waiting list and in case the waiting list is exhausted from tbe eligible waiting persons of the previous list. 8. It is a settled position that the authorities are not bound or obliged to fill up a vacancy. No selected person can claim that an existing vacancy will have to be filled up. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to issue any direction to the District Judge, Cuttack to appoint the petitioner temporarily in any of the existing vacancies. 9. No selected person can claim that an existing vacancy will have to be filled up. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to issue any direction to the District Judge, Cuttack to appoint the petitioner temporarily in any of the existing vacancies. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the clarification that if tbe District Judge, Cuttack feels the necessity of filling up any existing vacancy temporarily till publication of result of the next selection test, he may appoint from the waiting list prepared in the last selection process, in accordance with Rule 6(5) of the Rules, provided tbe person is within the prescribed age-limit. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar (Administration), Orissa High Court. 10. Writ petition disposed of.