JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This will writ application has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.8.2004 passed by the District Judge, Kandhamal, Boudh Phulbani by which petitioner was ordered to show-cause to the effect that when her appointment was made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list, i.e., 19.6.2002 why her services may not be terminated on that ground as her appointment was quite illegal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the District Judge, Phulbani by order dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-1) invited applications from the intending candidates for the recruitment examination for filling up two posts of Junior Stenographers in the judgeship of Kandhamal-Boudh-Phulbani. It was specifically mentioned therein that two posts of Junior Stenographers are lying vacant and two posts would likely to be filled up in the event of opening of Courts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kandhamal and Daringibadi. 3. The above mentioned advertisement was made in pursuance of Rule (6) of the appendix A of the Orissa District and Subordi¬nate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment And Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the aforesaid rules which is as under : “6. 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.” 4. It is also necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the advertisement dated 26.5.2000 made in pursuance of the letter dated 20.5.2000 of the District Judge for making such advertise¬ment in the newspaper which is as under : “Dated 26.5.2000 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KANDHAMAL, BOUDH PHULBANI Dated the 20th May, 2000 ADVERTISEMENT Applications are invited from the intending candidates desirous of appearing at the recruitment examination for filling up two posts of Junior Stenographers in the Judgeship of Kandha¬mal-Boudh, Phulbani, which are lying vacant and two posts would likely to be filled up in the event of opening of Courts of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Kandhamal and Daringibadi. Division) at Kandhamal and Daringibadi. Category Men Women Scheduled Tribe 1 1 Scheduled Caste 1 - General - 1 In the event of non-availability of eligible women candi¬dates belonging to any particular community, the vacancy shall be filled up by male candidates of that community.” 5. Needless to mention that the petitioner had applied for the post as woman candidate and appeared in the examination. Consequently the result was declared on 19.6.2001 (Annexure-2). The merit list of the successful general category candidates of Junior Stenographers against the recruitment examination held on 18.3.2001 was made as under : OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE KANDHAMAL BOUDH PHULBANI Dated the 19th day of June, 2001. Merit list of Successful Candidates of Junior Stenographers against the Recruitment Examination made on 18.3.2001. xx xx xx xx xx xx Sl. No. Roll No. Name of the successful candidates xx xx xx xx xx xx Merit list of General Candidates 1. 175 Manjulata Sadangi 2 29 Sagarabala Mallik xx xx xx 6. We are concerned with the merit list of general candi¬dates in which one Manjulata Sadangi got first position and the name of the petitioner appeared at sl. No.2 of the said merit list. 7. Two posts of Junior Stenographers were created in the month of May, 2002 on creation of two new Courts of J.M.F.C.; one at Daringibadi and another at Kandhamal. Thereafter according to the condition of the advertisement regarding the vacancy the District Judge, Kandhamal, Boudh Phulbani offered appointment for the post of Junior Stenographer to the candidate who was at sl. No.1 in the merit list, i.e., Manjulata Sarangi vide order dated 1.7.2002 with a direction to join on 10.7.2002; but she did not join and as such the next candidate of merit, i.e., petitioner was offered such appointment vide order dated 17.7.2002. As a result of which, she submitted her joining report in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Kandhamal. But she was deputed to work in the District Court at Phulbani until further orders. She was discharging her duties regularly but all of a sudden she received the impugned show-cause notice by which it was proposed that her services shall be terminated due to the reason that her appointment was made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list. She was discharging her duties regularly but all of a sudden she received the impugned show-cause notice by which it was proposed that her services shall be terminated due to the reason that her appointment was made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list. The said notice to show-cause is reproduced here as follows: “OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KANDHAMAL-BOUDH, PHULBANI. L. No.5181/Dated 21.8.2004. To Miss Sagarbala Mallick, Junior Stenographer, J.M.F.C. Court, G. Udayagiri. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Take notice that from the materials on official record, it appears that your name finds place in the merit list of Junior Stenographer under Serial No.2 of General category pre¬pared by the District Judge, Phulbani on 19.6.2001. The said list expired after one year of the date of publication i.e., 18.6.2002 as per Rule-6 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969, but you have been, ap¬pointed as Junior Stenographer under District Court Memo No.3140(7) Dated 17.7.2002, since the appointment order was issued after expiry of the Merit List, the said appointment is quite illegal. Hence you are hereby directed to submit your show-cause within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why your service shall not be terminated, failing which it will be deemed that you have no explanation to after (perhaps ‘offer’) and the matter will be decided accordingly. xx xx xx” 8. Normally we do not interfere at the stage of show-cause notice, but in this case we observe that here is a peculiar cir¬cumstance where this Court feels it proper to interfere with the notice to show cause. 9. The question has arisen before this Court as to whether the life of the select list under the rules is only one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination or till exhaustion of vacancies occurred during the one year of the period of select list. 10. 9. The question has arisen before this Court as to whether the life of the select list under the rules is only one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination or till exhaustion of vacancies occurred during the one year of the period of select list. 10. In this regard there is no other relevant rule except Rule 6 of Appendix A of the Rules, reproduced above which speaks that the District Judge shall prepare a list of successful candi¬dates in order of merit and communicate the results of the exami¬nation 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. In this rule it has not been mentioned that the life of the select list would be one year whereas it has been mentioned specifically therein that the select list once prepared shall be exhausted by taking the candi¬dates from the select list in order of merit for appointment against the vacancies which have already occurred or may occur during the period of one year from the date of publication of the result of the recruitment examination. Therefore, what is in fact relevant therein is the one period of occurrence of vacancies from the date of publication of result of examination and not the one year’s time from the date of publication of the same. In the instant matter, it is not disputed that the vacancy had occurred in the month of May, 2002, which was during the period of one year from the date of declaration of result of successful candidates which is 19.6.2001. As such the post on which the petitioner was ap¬pointed had occurred during the span of one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination and therefore, if the candidate whose name was at sl. No. 1 of the merit list did not join, the appointment was liable to be offered to the petitioner whose name was at sl. No.2 thereof and as such she has rightly been given appointment order. The opposite party No.1 has wrongly interpreted Rule 6 of Appendix A of the Rules to the effect that appointment could not have been offered to the petitioner after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the re¬sult. 11. No.2 thereof and as such she has rightly been given appointment order. The opposite party No.1 has wrongly interpreted Rule 6 of Appendix A of the Rules to the effect that appointment could not have been offered to the petitioner after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the re¬sult. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the impugned show-cause notice issued to the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, and therefore, is baseless and the same is liable to be quashed. 12. For the facts and circumstances mentioned, the writ application is allowed. The impugned show-cause notice dated 21.8.2004 (Annexure-4) issued to the petitioner is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as a successful candidate in the post of Junior Stenographer and shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits. 13. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) for the purpose of intimating all the District Judges of the State of Orissa to follow the observation/direction of this order in all similar cases. 14. No order as to cost. Application allowed.