JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly opposite parties 1 and 2, to conduct the interview/test as per advertisement dated 25.03.1994 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition by declaring the appointment made subsequent to the said advertisement as illegal. 2. It appears that the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. had issued an advertisement in the newspaper dated 25.03.1 994 to fill up 25 vacancies of Junior Stenographer (General-10, ST-8, SC-5, Ex-Serviceman-1 and Sports-1) but no action was taken thereafter to fill up the posts pursuant to the said advertisement. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that subsequent to the advertisement in question the Corporation noticed that it will cause administrative inconvenience if recruitments are not made from among local candidates in each district. Therefore, a policy decision was taken in Boards' meeting dated 21.05.1994 amending Rule 9 of the Boards' Service Rules, 1993. Under proviso to Rule 21(4) of the Rules the Corporation through its Managing Director was shown to be the appointing authority in respect of Junior Grade-III employees of the Corporation. But Sub-rule (6) was added to Rule 9 thereof on 21.05.1994 delegating the power of recruitment to a District Level Committee in each district with the condition that the appointment would be made on the approval of the select list by the Corporation, i.e., Head Office. But a common gradation list shall be maintained according to the dates of appointment. After completion of the constitution of District Level Committees in all the districts, a fresh advertisement would be made for the regular appointment. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner will also be considered with other applicants if she applies for such district-wise regular appointment in future when a fresh advertisement is made for the same. 4. It is well settled law that the Court cannot compel the recruiting authority to make recruitment in case it has advertised the post for the purpose of recruitment. It can also not be directed that the appointment be made pursuant to the advertisement or selection 5. It has also been argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime some appointments have been made in the post of Junior Stenographer. It can also not be directed that the appointment be made pursuant to the advertisement or selection 5. It has also been argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime some appointments have been made in the post of Junior Stenographer. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that it has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that in order to meet urgent administrative exigencies Junior Stenographers were temporarily engaged on daily wage basis by few District Managers. 6. It cannot be said that the opposite parties or their District Managers cannot engage persons on daily wage basis to meet the urgent administrative exigencies. Engagement on daily wage basis has no concern with recruitment on regular vacancies. Therefore, no fault can be found in engaging persons on daily wage basis to meet the urgent administrative exigencies. 7. In view of the above, no cause is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed