JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The above noted three writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal by this common order as the subject matter in all the writ petitions is same and common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases. 2. The case of petitioners as noted in the writ petitions can be summarized as follows : On 4th of May, 1992 the District & Sessions Judge, Sambal¬pur, Opp.party No.1 invited applications from the candidates to fill up 2 posts of Junior Clerks and 4 posts of Junior Typists lying vacant in the judgeship and to draw up a waiting list for the posts of Junior Clerks and Junior Typists to be filled up as and when vacancy arises. Out of the advertised posts, two posts of Junior Clerks and two posts of Junior Typists were meant for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates only. Pursuant to such advertisement, petitioners and many others applied and faced a written test conducted by opp.party No. 1 on 30th April, 1995 in the Civil Court premises, Sambalpur. Some of the candidates including the petitioners who were successful in the written test were called for viva voce test and finally a list of successful candidates in order of merit for the post of Junior Clerks was published wherein the names of petitioners of OJC No. 7058 of 1999 find place at serial Nos.40, 51, 55,60,65, 91 and 106, names of the petitioners of OJC No.2327 of 1999 find place at serial Nos. 99, 41, 34, 56, 44, 37, 68, 35, 95, 109, 62, 96, 69, 58, 57, 76, 107, 63, 39 and 42 and names of petitioners of OJC No.968 of 1999 find pace at serial Nos. 31, 53, 78, 94, 46, 43, 187, 50, 54 and 32 respectively. Out of that merit list, opp.party No.1 appointed 24 Nos. of Junior Clerks on 17.05.1997 and 9 Nos. of Junior Clerks on 13.05.1998 as per Annexures-4 & 5. Since more numbers of person than the number of posts advertised were ap¬pointed by orders under Annexures 4 & 5, the petitioners were hopeful that whenever subsequent vacancy will arise their cases will be considered for appointment and with such hope they went on waiting. of Junior Clerks on 13.05.1998 as per Annexures-4 & 5. Since more numbers of person than the number of posts advertised were ap¬pointed by orders under Annexures 4 & 5, the petitioners were hopeful that whenever subsequent vacancy will arise their cases will be considered for appointment and with such hope they went on waiting. When the matter stood thus, opp.party No.1 published an advertisement on 08.02.1999 inviting applications from the interested candidates for filling up the posts of 9 Junior Clerks, 4 Junior Typists and 4 Junior Stenographers putting among other conditions that the age of the candidates should not be below 18 years and more than 32 years as on 26.03.1999. Petition¬ers in each of the writ petitions claim for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the learned Dis¬trict & Sessions Judge, Sambalpur to adhere to Rule 5 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts’ Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (in short ‘the Rules’) and also to the 100 point model roaster to issue appointment letters in their favour for the posts of Junior Clerks which are now lying vacant in Sambalpur Judgeship. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1, the issue of advertisement dated 04.05.1992 for 2 posts of Junior Clerks and 4 posts of Junior Typists, holding of written and viva-voce test, preparation of the select list in order of merit, issue of appointment for 24 posts and 9 posts of Junior Clerks from the merit list on 17.05.1997 and 13.05.1998 respec¬tively are admitted. It is however submitted that the select list prepared and published on 15.05.1997 by opp.party No.1 was valid for only one year,i.e., up to 14.05.1998, as Rule 6 of Appendix-A of the Rules provides that the District Judge shall appoint candidates against the vacancies that has occurred or may occur during the period of one year from the date of publication of result of the examination. It is also submitted that consider¬ing the vacancies available during the period of one year ap¬pointments were made on 17.05.1997 and 13.05.1998 strictly ac¬cording to 80 point model roaster set by the State Government. It is also submitted that consider¬ing the vacancies available during the period of one year ap¬pointments were made on 17.05.1997 and 13.05.1998 strictly ac¬cording to 80 point model roaster set by the State Government. It was explained that the appointments for more than the number of posts advertised were made as there was emergent situation such as opening of 3 Courts of C.J.M. at Bargarh, Jharsuguda and Deogarh and a Civil Court (Junior Division) at Jharsuguda during that period of one year. Regarding the claim of some of the petitioners for the reserved category posts opp.party No.1 clari¬fied that all the successful Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates were appointed against the reserved vacancies and because the petitioners, who are now claiming the reserved posts had not produced any document in support of their status and had appeared at the recruitment test as general candidates, there was no scope of appointing them against the reserved posts. In sub¬stance, the plea of opp.party No.1 is that the life of the merit list has expired after one year from the date of publication and as such there is now no cause of action available to the peti¬tioners. 4. Mr. Aswini Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.J.C. Nos. 968 of 1999 and 2327 of 1999 and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in O.J.C. No.7058 of 1999 submitted that when 38 posts of Junior Clerks were fill up against the advertisement made only for 2 posts of Junior Clerk, there was no reason for the opp.party No.1 not to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against the subsequent vacancies particularly when no other recruitment had been made. According to them, vacancies should be filled up from the merit list till the list is exhausted or result of the subse¬quent recruitment test is published. They pointed out that one Sudam Taria and one Mahesh Nath Pande belonging to Scheduled Caste community resigned after joining the posts and so those posts were available and should have been filed up by appointing candidates amongst the petitioners belonging to Schedule Caste. It was also argued that the appointments made by opp.party No.1 are not in accordance with model roaster, which was prevalent during the relevant period, as a result the petitioners were adversely affected. It was also argued that the appointments made by opp.party No.1 are not in accordance with model roaster, which was prevalent during the relevant period, as a result the petitioners were adversely affected. Several case laws including the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10930 of 2004 were cited. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submit¬ted that according to Rule-6, Appendix-A of the Rules, the life span of the merit list was for one year and accordingly appointments were made from the select list for the vacancies, which occurred during that period of one year. He submitted that, the appointments were made strictly in accordance with 80 point model roaster which was in vogue and some of the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be filled up due to non-availability of suitable candidates of those categories in the select list. Learned Addl.Government Advocate claimed that in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Dasar¬athi Behera and others v. District Judge,Ganjam and others, 84(1997) CLT 838, petitioners have no cause of action after all these years as the life span of the select list has already ex¬pired and they are also not eligible otherwise.Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also indicated that the ratio of W.P.(C) 10930 of 2004 of this Court is not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances are totally different. 6. From the above noted contentions of learned counsel for the parties, one can gather that the controversy is confined only to the following two points : (i) Whether the life of the select list prepared by opposite party No.1 expires after one year or it continues till the result of the subsequent recruitment test is published; and (ii) Whether the case of the petitioners belonging to the re¬served category was not considered although vacancies of the reserved category were available. 7. 7. Petitioners relied on the cases of Himansu Parida v. District Judge, Bolangir, 82 (1996) CLT 585; R. Srinibas Pattnaik v. Registrar, District & Sessions Judge Court, Jeypore, Koraput, 93(2002) CLT 36; Kamal Kumar Gochhayat and another v. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and others, 92 (2001) CLT 477; and Vijaya Kumar Sharma and others v. Chairman, School Service Commission and others, AIR 2001 SC 1961, and also the case of Sagarbala Mallick v. District Judge, Kandhamal, Boudh Phulbani and another, W.P.(C) No.10930 of 2004 of this Court, disposed of on 07.03.2005. In the case of Himansu Parida (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, relying on Rule 6 and Clause 6 of Appendix-A of the Rules together with a Circular Letter issued by the High Court directing for conducting recruitment examination only on occurring of five or more vacancies, held that the selection list published shall remain in force till the list of successful candidates is exhausted by providing them appointment. The same issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of Dasarathi Behera (supra). In that case the provision of Rule 6 together with Clauses 1 and 6 of Appendix-A of the Rules were considered and it was held that the selection list of suc¬cessful candidates is to remain in force only for a period of one year from the date of its publication. During that period the notified vacancies and any other vacancy occurring in the judge¬ship can be filled up from such selection list. On expiry of the period of one year from the date of publication of the select list, appointment cannot be given tot he candidates from such list because that contravenes the mandate of law under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by depriving eligible and duly qualified candidates to appear and participate in comple¬tions for the purpose of recruitment. Since that view of the Division Bench was followed from the Rules and also from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 1996 S.C.C. (L. & S.) 934; Hajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1996 S.C.C. (L. & S.) 1496; Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Bank¬ing Service Recruitment Board and others, A.I.R. 1996 SC 976; and State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others, A.I.R. 1996 SC 2173, the ratio in the case of Himansu Parida (supra) being contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court, is impliedly over-ruled and does not have the binding precedent. 8. In the case of Kamal Kumar (supra), learned Single Judge held that in view of the ratio in the case of Himansu Parida (supra) the list of selected candidates remains valid till exhausted. Though learned Single Judge took note of the ratio in the case of Prem Singh (supra), but he did not follow the same. Apart from that, the view expressed in Kamal Kumar's case being in direct conflict with the Division Bench's decision in the case of Dasarathi Behera (supra), the said dsecision is over ruled. 9. In the cases of R. Srinibas Pattnaik (supra), Sagarbala Mallick (supra) and also in the case of Vijaya Kumar Sharma (supra), the facts and circumstances are quite distinguishable and not touching on the issue under deliberation. In the case of R. Srinibas Pattnaik there was a judicial direction from this Court for issue of appointment letter to the petitioner and the Division Bench simply reiterated on that and did not deliberate on the correct interpretation of law. In the case of Sagarbala Mallick the vacancy which occurred within the period of one year of preparation of the selection list was followed with appoint¬ment to a second candidate (the writ petitioner) on the refusal by the senior persons in the list, but later on notice to show cause was issued for termination of her service and in that context the Division Bench has deliberated on the issue. In the case of Vijaya Kumar Sharma (supra), three out of four appellants were empanelled. The period of select list was extended with respect to others and it was not done in their case and therefore the Apex Court passed appropriate order in that respect. 10. In the case of Vijaya Kumar Sharma (supra), three out of four appellants were empanelled. The period of select list was extended with respect to others and it was not done in their case and therefore the Apex Court passed appropriate order in that respect. 10. Be that as it may, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court still holds good so as to back the ratio of this Court in the case of Dasarathi Behera (supra) and, therefore, any ratio contrary to that unless comes from Supreme Court is to be taken as a decision impliedly over ruled. 11. It is apparent from Rule 6(1) that the scheme of Rule is that the District Judge is to conduct competitive examination for recruitment of Junior Clerk once in every year. In Sub-Rule (5) the term “after the list of successful candidates is exhaust¬ed” can only mean, “after making appointment as against notified vacancies and before announcement of the result of the examina¬tion of the subsequent year”. Sub-rule (5) cannot be read in isolation to sub-rule (1). A conjoint reading of these Rules along with Appendix-A clearly suggests that every year recruit¬ment examination is to be held and a select list is to be pre¬pared every year, thereby limiting the life span of the select list to only one year. This view gets absolute support from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of U.P. and another v. Harish Chandra (supra), Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (supra), Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) and Hajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (supra). 12. We reiterate that select list prepared in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules shall normally remain alive for a period of one year and can be utilized for filling up vacancies adver¬tised as well as vacancies which occur during the period of one year from the date of publication of the merit list. 13. Admittedly, in the present case the select list was published in May, 1997 and appointment letters were issued to 24 successful candidates on 17.5.1997 and 9 candidates on 15.5.1998. 13. Admittedly, in the present case the select list was published in May, 1997 and appointment letters were issued to 24 successful candidates on 17.5.1997 and 9 candidates on 15.5.1998. Such appointments were made within one year from the date of publication of the list against the advertised post as well as the vacancies which occurred during one year from the date of the publication of the select list. According to petitioners, since some more vacancies occurred and the select list of the subse¬quent recruitment test had not been published, they should have been appointed against those vacant posts instead of contemplat¬ing a fresh recruitment as advertised on 18.2.1999. From the very pleading of the petitioners, it can be seen that they are not sure about the number of vacancies available and what number of vacancies occurred during one year from the date of publication of the merit list. As has been said, appointment from the select list can be made against the vacancies which occur within one year from the date of publication of select list. Neither the rule nor the judicial pronouncements say that a select list pre¬pared would remain alive for an indefinite period and that no fresh recruitment would be made till the entire list is exhaust. That being the legal and factual position, the claim of the petitioners has no force at all. 14. Argument was advanced by Mr. C.A. Rao that persons placed in the merit list at serial Nos. 84, 92, 97 and 103 were given appointment ignoring the case of the petitioners whose names find place at serial Nos. 14, 51, 55, 60, 65, 91 and so on. He also argued that petitioners whose names appear at serial Nos. 40, 91 and 106 belong to Scheduled Caste category, but they were not appointed although vacancies in Scheduled Caste category oc¬curred on the resignation of Mahednranath Pande at serial No.23 and Sudam Taria serial No.13. It is pertinent to note that the above submission of learned counsel does not find place in the pleading of the petitioners. That apart, there is no indication any where in the petition or rejoinder filed by petitioners as to when the vacancies arose on the resignation of Mahendranath Pande and Sudam Taria. It is pertinent to note that the above submission of learned counsel does not find place in the pleading of the petitioners. That apart, there is no indication any where in the petition or rejoinder filed by petitioners as to when the vacancies arose on the resignation of Mahendranath Pande and Sudam Taria. In the counter opp.party No.1 has clearly mentioned that appointments for the general candidates were issued from the merit list up to serial No.27 and that the order of the merit list was never violated. It is also indicated that vacancies for the reserved categories were filled up from the candidates available on the merit list strictly in accordance with the model 80 point roaster. It is clarified that due to non-availability of successful S.T. candidates in the merit list roaster points 20, 26, 30, 34 are lying vacant and such posts cannot be deserved to accommodate the petitioners in view of the bar provided in the ORV Act. Opp.party No.1 has further asserted that the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 of W.P.(C) No.7058 of 1999, who are claiming as OBC Candidates did not submit any certificate in support of their claim, rather they submitted forms and fees as general candidates. So far as reservation for handicapped person, it is submitted by opp.party No.1 that in the 80 point model roaster there is no reservation for handicapped candidates. This claim of opp.party No.1 has in no way been refuted by petition¬ers. Mr. Rao simply argued that at the relevant time the 100 point model roaster was in vogue but the same was not adopted. According to him, if 100 point model roaster would have been adopted some of the petitioners belonging to the reserved catego¬ry could have been accommodated. This submission is untenable as 80-point model roaster came into force on 21.04.1994 in place of 100 point model roaster. There was also a revision in 1996. So, the revised 80-point model roaster was in vogue when the appoint¬ment from the select list was made by opp.party No.1 and appoint¬ments have been made in accordance with the revised 80 point model roaster. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that the claim of the petitioners to quash the advertisement dated 08.02.1999 and for a direction to opp.party No.1 to appoint them against the existing vacancies is not tenable. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that the claim of the petitioners to quash the advertisement dated 08.02.1999 and for a direction to opp.party No.1 to appoint them against the existing vacancies is not tenable. The writ petitions are accordingly found to be without any merit and are dismissed. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petitions dismissed.