Judgment:
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.
1. In these writ petitions a common question with regard to the period of validity of the select list under Rule-6 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Court's Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 is involved.
2. The petitioners' claim that they were empanelled in the select list of Junior Clerk of the year 1993 pursuant to the recruitment made vide advertisement issued in the year 1992. The petitioners have sought the direction that the select list was to remain operative till its exhaustion and, therefore, the District Judge concerned be directed to give effect to the remaining persons empanelled in the select list.
3. We think it appropriate to mention here that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dasarathi Behera and Ors. v. District Judge, Ganjam and Ors. 84 (1997) C.L.T. 838 had the occasion to interpret Rule 6(5) of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1969'). The Division Bench of which one of us (Hon'ble Tripathy, J.) was a member considering the provision and relying upon the decisions of the apex Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. 1996 S.C.C. (L&S;) 934 and Hajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1996 S.C.C. (L&S;) 1496 held that the Rule, 1969 does not prescribe for keeping a Select list valid beyond the period of one year from the date of publication. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himansu Parida v. District Judge, Balangir : 82 (1996) CLT 585 considering the selfsame provision in the Rules held that though there is no specific provision that the list would remain valid for one year but there is no iota of doubt on reading of the rules in harmonious manner that the list would remain valid for one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination. But then having regard to a letter of the Registrar (Administration) of the Court to all the District Judges not to hold recruitment examination in respect of L.D.Cs., Typists and Copyists as postulated in Rule 6(1) and (2) and Clause (1) of the Appendix unless there is likelihood of vacancy to the extent of atleast five arising in a year and a decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Rout's case held that the merit list published in that case would remain valid till the publication of the result of the next examination.
3. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Rule 6(1) and (5) along with Clause-6 of Appendix-A which are reproduced as under:
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 examination, whenever necessary.
(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 beyond the date when result of the next year's examination is declared, unless he passes the said examination.
Appendix-A so far as relevant is reproduced 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 inviting applications for the examination. Such competitive examination shall ordinarily be held in the month of December.
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 appears that in O.J.C. No. 2466 of 1995 the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.8.1995 inter alia issued the direction which is quoted as under:
We however direct that no fresh general candidate will be appointed to the post of Junior Clerk till the present list of October 1993 is exhausted. We also direct that the order given in the list will be followed while issuing appointment orders.
But in Civil Review No. 40 of 1990 filed against he aforesaid order, the Division Bench observed that there was no discussion of the question with reference to Rule 6 of the Rules. The Division Bench further observed that normally the legal position has to be considered while issuing a direction as quoted above. The Bench was of the opinion that the direction under review ran counter to Rule-6 of the Rules. Holding that the said question was not considered and a decision on principle was not taken and the question raised has a general importance, and that the order dated 10.8.1995 rendered in O.J.C. No. 2466 of 1995 was required to be reviewed and the writ petition was required to be heard afresh in the light of the relevant provisions and the decisions governing the field, the Division Bench allowed the review, set aside the order dated 10.8.1995 passed in O.J.C. No. 2466 of 1995 and reopened the writ petition for hearing it afresh along with the connected matters.
5. It is also to be noticed that the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri S.N. Phukan and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Pasayat (as they then were) disposed of a batch of writ petitions leading case of which was O.J.C. No. 632 of 1996 following the Hon'ble apex Court decision in the case of Moshiar Singh v. State of Haryana 1994 Supp. (4) SCC 377. In that case a requisition was sent to select candidates for appointment of six posts of Inspector of Police by advertisement. Subsequent to the written examination, but prior to the physical test and interview, a revised request was made for eight more posts. The Board recommended 19 names out of which 18 persons were given appointment, which was challenged in the High Court, which held that the appointment beyond 8 posts was illegal. The apex Court observed that since the requisition was for eight posts, the Board was required to send its recommendation for eight posts only. The apex Court held as under:
The appointment on the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were at eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of applications mentioned in the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same....
6. Further in the case of State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asst. Successful Examiner's Union 1986 : (1994) 1 SCC 126, the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board had issued an advertisement in the year 1985 inviting applications for the posts of Assistants falling vacant up to the year 1985-86. The number of vacancies was announced in August, 1987 and the examination was held in November, 1987, results of which were published in July, 1990. Immediately thereafter, out of the successful candidates, 309 were given appointment and the rest empanelled but made to wait for release of further vacancies. Since the vacancies available after 31.12.1988 were not disclosed or communicated to the Board, no further appointment could be made. Thereafter the empanelled candidates approached the Patna High Court and the High Court directed them to be appointed against the posts available on the date of publication of result as well as the vacancies which had arisen up to 1991. The Apex Court quashed the judgment of the High Court directing filling up of vacancies for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 from out of the list of the candidates who had appeared in the examination held in 1987.
Therefore, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions that the number of posts which was in existence on the date of advertisement may be filled up and subsequent posts which may be available due to fresh 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.
7. In the instant cases the intention of the Legislature in prescribing that the examination shall be held once in a year was to hold the examination every year. However, Clause 6 of Appendix-A provides that a list of successful candidates in order of merit shall be prepared and the result of the examination will be communicated and the candidates shall be appointed against the vacancies that have occurred or may be occurred during the period of one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination.
8. It is settled law that the provisions of a statute cannot be read in isolation; once a statute is to be followed, the same is to be followed in toto. Rules-6(1) provides that the examination may be held once in a year and Clause-6 of Appendix-(A) provides that the selected persons would be given appointment against the vacancies that have occurred or may occur within a period of one year from the date of publication of the result of the examination which shows that the life of the select list shall be only for one year. If the examination is not held every year that may be an irregularity the benefit of which cannot be given to the candidates empanelled in the select list of previous year. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 only provides for appointment in stop gap arrangement and, therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the appointment in a stop gap arrangement is made from the select list for the previous year and a person has a right to be appointed or continue on such post. Therefore, no right accrues to persons under Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 6.
9. In view of the above, the select list cannot remain in force on the expiry of one year for, the life of the select list is one year according to the rules from the date of its publication. Consequently, the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Dasarathi Behera (supra) is approved and that taken in the case of Himansu Parida (supra) is overruled.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
There would be no order as to costs.
P.K. Tripathy, J.
10. I agree.
B.P. Das, J.
11. I agree.