JUDGMENT : Dr. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - These two Writ Petitions have been filed seeking appointment to the post of Junior Typist on the basis of the select list published on 8.6.2008 and further challenging the subsequent advertisement dated 16.02.2006 for the said-post. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that, in order to fill up five posts of Junior Typist in the judgeship of Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur, under the provision of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), an advertisement dated 23.1.2001 (Annex.-l) was made. Out of the said posts three posts were to be filled up by General category, one post by S.E.B.C. Category and one post by S.C. category candidates. Petitioners, in both the Writ Petitions, had submitted their applications in pursuance of the said advertisement for General category and appeared in the test. The select list was prepared and published on 8.6.2002 (Annex.-3) wherein the name of the Petitioners appeared at S1. Nos. 4 and 7 in the list of General category candidates. As there were only three vacancies in that category, the same had been filled up by the first three candidates in the merit list and Petitioners could not be offered with appointments. The other vacancies in the quota of SEBC and SC were also filled up. 3. A fresh advertisement was issued on 16.2.2006 for filling up four posts of Junior Typist. Against the said advertisement these Writ Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners seeking appointment in pursuance of their earlier select list dated 8.6.2002 on the ground that all the vacancies which came into existence between 8.6.2002 and 26.2.2006 should be filled up from the waiting list prepared in pursuance of the earlier selection of 2002. 4. We have heard Mr. S.D. Das, and Mr. A.A. Das, Learned. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. P. Panda, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 5. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in view of the provision of Rule 6 (5) of the Rules, a select list once prepared remains alive till the next selection is held and the appointing authority is bound to offer appointment to those in the select list whenever the vacancy occurs prior to the next selection. 6. On the contrary Mr. 6. On the contrary Mr. P. Panda, Learned Add. Standing Counsel has submitted that select list has a life of one year only. It is also not permissible to fill up over and above the advertised vacancies and once said vacancies are filled up, the selection process stands exhausted and nothing survives, and the waiting list lapses. Rule 6(5) of the Rules provides for filling up the vacancies of temporary posts and no person in the waiting list can claim any right to the post on regular basis. It is further contended that Petitioners have approached this Court with an inordinate delay and have no right to challenge the future advertisement. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. Similar view has subsequently been taken by the Supreme Court in Asha Kaul (Mrs) and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, ; Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal and another, ; Hanuman Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Vijesh, ; Bihar Public Service Commission and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, ; Syndicate Bank and others Vs. Shankar Paul and others, ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Others Vs. Dr Anand Prakash Mishra and Others, ; Simanchal Panda Vs. State of Orissa and Others, ; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. S.G. Kotturappa and Another, ; Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh, ; State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, ; Divisional Forests Officers and Others Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy, ; Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, . 9. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, ; Divisional Forests Officers and Others Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy, ; Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, . 9. It is also the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate after expiry of the Select List. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 225; State of Bihar and others Vs. Md. Kalimuddin and others, ; State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another, ; State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj, ; K. Thulaseedharan Vs. The Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum and Others, ; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 194 ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others. It has been held therein that if the select list expires as per the rules applicable, as its life is over, no appointment can be made from the said list. 10. In State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Another the Apex Court examined the case where only one post was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. The Court rejected the contention that post can be filled up offering the appointment to the next candidate in the select list observing as under: With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select list prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. (Emphasis added) 11. The Court was of the view that it would amount to filling up the future vacancy. Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised, is without jurisdiction, therefore a nullity, inexecutable and unenforceable in law. 12. In Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. (Emphasis added) 11. The Court was of the view that it would amount to filling up the future vacancy. Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised, is without jurisdiction, therefore a nullity, inexecutable and unenforceable in law. 12. In Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others the Supreme Court held as under: 5. Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution enshrines fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore, vacant posts arising or expected -should-be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered for their selection ill accordance with their merit The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution Boards should notify the existing and excepted vacancies and the Recruitment Board should get advertisement published and recruitment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance with the procedure to the notified vacancies but not to any vacancies that may arise during the process of selection" (Emphasis added) 13. In Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the appointments made over and above the vacancies advertised holding that such an action was neither permissible nor desirable for the reason that it would amount to 'improper exercise of power' and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, this rule can be deviated from and it can be done only after adopting policy decision based on some rational as the authority cannot fill up more posts than advertised as a matter of course. 14. In Prem Singh and Others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others the Apex Court observed as under ...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 State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. 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 State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. (Emphasis added) 15. The said judgment in Prem Singh was followed with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, . 16. In Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 84, the Court held that selected candidate have right to appointment only against 'vacancies notified' and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidate cannot be valid of indefinite period. Moreover, impanelled candidates "In any event cannot have a right against future vacancies." In State of Bihar and others Vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others the Apex Court held that" a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules say to the contrary." In the said case as the selection process was completed in five years after the publication of the advertisement, the contention was raised that the empanelled candidates deserved to be appointed over and above the vacancies notified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention observing that keeping the selection process pending for long and not issuing any fresh advertisement in between, may not be justified but offering the posts in such a manner would adversely prejudice the cause of those candidates who achieved eligibility in the meantime. 17. In Surinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 18 , the Apex Court Court held as under:? A waiting list, prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. 17. In Surinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 18 , the Apex Court Court held as under:? A waiting list, prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the persons from the waiting list may be pushed UP and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who became eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as infinite stock for appointment, there is danger that the State may resort to the device of not holding the examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The Constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetuating the waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.....Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touch-stone of reasonableness. It is not a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised. (Emphasis added) 18. In Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others the Apex Court similarly observed as under: As per the scheme of the Act and the aforesaid provisions, for each academic year in question, the management has to intimate the existing vacancies and vacancies likely to be caused by the end of the ensuing academic year in question thereafter, the Director shall notify the same to the Commission and the Commission, in turn, will invite applications by giving wide publicity in the State of such vacancies. The vacancies cannot be filled except by following the procedure as contained therein. The vacancies cannot be filled except by following the procedure as contained therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 has incorporated in strong words that any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void. This was to ensure to back-door entry but selection only as provided under the said sections. (Emphasis added) 19. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sri Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 237 ; and State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, . 20. In view of the above, it is evident that a select list has a definite period of life and when all the appointments to the vacancies advertised are made and candidates who are offered the appointment join the service, the selection process stands exhausted and the select list/waiting list does not survive. In case a candidate who is above in the merit list is offered the appointment and he joins the post, the post stands filled up and in case he resigns or dies that vacancy cannot be filled up from the merit list/waiting list and the proceeding for fresh selection has to be initiated. 21. The case of the Petitioners is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition. Further none of the Petitioners have disclosed as to when the alleged vacancies, against which they seek appointment, occurred. Even if the vacancy occurred, no averment is made as to whether it could be offered to the category to which the Petitioners belong. Further since the names of the Petitioners in the select list appear at Sl Nos. 4 and 7, in the General category candidates' list, whether they could be offered appointment without making offer to the candidates above them in the merit list has also not been pleaded. There is no pleadings worth any consideration in respect of any of the aforesaid issues.21. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:? In Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:? In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the Writ Petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the Writ Petition and if he is the Respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the Writ Petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the CPC and a Writ Petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a Writ Petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 22. Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, ; National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan and Others, ; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others, ; Smt. Chitra Kumari etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, ; and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others Etc., . 23. In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. N. Rudrakar and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18 ; Devasahayam (D) by LRs. Vs. P. Savithramma and Others, ; and Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, . 24. In such an eventuality as the Petitioners miserably failed to make any pleadings worth any consideration, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to consider the petitions. 25. Further as the petitions are pending for about last three years' and the selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.2.2006 has been kept in abeyance, it is desirable to deal with the case on merit. 26. 25. Further as the petitions are pending for about last three years' and the selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.2.2006 has been kept in abeyance, it is desirable to deal with the case on merit. 26. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have placed very heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamal Kumar Gochhayat and another Vs. The Registrar, High Court of Orissa and others. However, the said judgment does not help the Petitioners at all for the simple reason that the aforesaid judgment was passed by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Singh (supra). In fact this Court merely held that Rule 6(5) of the Rules empowers the District Judge to make the appointment on temporary basis from the waiting list once the vacancies advertised stands filled up and if there is an urgency to fill up the vacancies, which came into existence subsequent thereto. However, the said judgment has not noted course the course of the authority to fill up the vacancies which came into existence subsequent to the first advertisement on permanent basis. 27. In Dasarathi Behera and Ors. v. District Judge, Ganjam ors., 84 (1997) CLT 838, the Division Bench of this Court held that act list once prepared has a life of one year. 28. The Division Bench of this Court in Sagarbala Mallick Vs. District Judge and Another considered the issue involved herein and came to the same conclusion that the life of the select list is only for a period of one year. 29. In view of the above, it is clear that the select list, as view had been taken in the aforesaid Judgment, expires on completion of one year from the date of its publication and any vacancy occurs during this period, it can be filled up temporarily from the waiting list so prepared, provided the candidate fulfils the other eligibility. In case such a candidate is not available, appointment on Ad hoc/temporary basis will be made from the earlier select list also. 30. In order to understand the provisions in correct perspective, it may be necessary to quote the relevant provision. 31. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for method of recruitment, Rule 5 provides for reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and military personnel. Rule 6 provides for competitive examination and mode of appointment. 30. In order to understand the provisions in correct perspective, it may be necessary to quote the relevant provision. 31. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for method of recruitment, Rule 5 provides for reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and military personnel. Rule 6 provides for competitive examination and mode of appointment. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 provides the standard, syllabus, subjects of examination, determination of vacancies, advertisement of vacancies and communication of results shall be as set forth in Appendix 'A'. Sub-rule (5) thereof reads as under: 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 candidate shall be made temporarily and shall not continue beyond the date when result of the next year's examination is declared, unless he passes the said examination. (Emphasis added) Appendix 'A' to the Rule reads as under: 1. The District Judge shall determine the number of vacancies in the posts of Lower Division Clerks including Copyists and Typists to be filled up on the result of the competitive examination held in each year and shall specify such number of vacancies in the advertisement intiving applications for the examination. Such competitive examination shall ordinarily be held in the month of December. xxx 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. (Emphasis added) 32. The Appendix is a part of the Rules and it further provides the mode of making the appointment. Therefore, Rule 6 (5) cannot be read in isolation of other Rules particularly Rule 4 and Appendix 'A' to the said Rules. (Emphasis added) 32. The Appendix is a part of the Rules and it further provides the mode of making the appointment. Therefore, Rule 6 (5) cannot be read in isolation of other Rules particularly Rule 4 and Appendix 'A' to the said Rules. Both the provisions have to be read giving harmonious construction. 33. Rule 6 (5) simply provides for filling up of the vacancies on Ad hoc basis. Mure so it also talks of next year's examination. 34. In case submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is accepted and if the waiting list is very long, it is clear that it will not be possible to fill up any future vacancies for a long period, which would amounts to filling up all the future vacancies treating the waiting list so prepared as a reservoir to fill up the vacancies whenever they occur in future. Such an interpretation would not only lead to absurdity but also would be violative of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. More so, the provision of Appendix 'A' of the Rules make it clear that the life of the select list is only for one year and the examination is to be held each year. 35. In such a fact-situation, the Petitioners cannot ask for any relief whatsoever and the petitions are totally misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. 36. No costs. I. Mahanty, J 37. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed