JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The District Judge, Mathura prepared a waiting list contemplated under Rule- 12 of the U.P. Subordiante Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 for appointment of candidates on the post of Process- Servers and Farrash in Class IV establishment. This waiting list prepared on 2-6-1986 consisted of 35 candidates against 5 notified vacancies. Pursuant to the aforesaid list, candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed immediately thereafter in the 5 notified vacancies. Thereafter, as and when the vacancies arose, candidates from serial Nos. 6 to 12 were appointed from the same list between the period 1986 to 1988. On 4-3-1989, the District Judge wrote a letter to the Registrar of the High Court, Allahabad seeking permission to cancel the list of the remaining candidates and for preparation of a new list. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court vide its letter dated 15-4-1989 communicated the decision of the High Court to the District Judge, Mathura intimating him that the Court had cancelled the panel of the waiting list which was prepared in the year 1986 and further a direction was given to the District Judge to make a fresh panel of candidates in the ratio of 1:3 i.e., for one vacancy, a waiting list of three shall be made.
2. The petitioners are those candidates, who were at serial Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the waiting list prepared in the year 1986 and are aggrieved by the decision of the Court cancelling the waiting list of 1986 and have filed this writ petition praying for the quashing of the communication sent by the Deputy Registrar to the District Judge, cancelling the list of 1986 and further praying for a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Mathura to appoint the petitioners in existing vacancies in Class IV cadre on the basis of the waiting list prepared in the year 1986.
3. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthalekar, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the, waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules could not be cancelled in this manner and that once a waiting list had been prepared it only comes to an end when the list gets exhausted. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that so long as the waiting list was not exhausted, a fresh list could not be prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the process initiated by the District Judge for the cancellation of the list was wholly illegal and against the provisions of the Rules and submitted that the District Judge had no power to initiate such a process under the Rules and that even the High Court had no power to order the cancellation of the list on its administrative side. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the event, this Court holds that the cancellation of the waiting list was valid, in that case the District Judge ought to have utilized the list upto serial No. 15 of the waiting list and only, thereafter, the said list could have been scrapped. The learned Counsel submitted that there were 5 vacancies, which were invited in the year 1986 and on the basis of 1:3 as directed by the Court, the number of candidates would come to 15 in number, therefore, the list would only be exhausted after utilizing the candidates up to serial No. 15.
5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners though attractive in the first instance are wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. The U.P. Subordinates Civil 'Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides for the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed in the Civil Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 12 of the Rules contemplates that a waiting list of the candidates shall be maintained in the Civil Court for the post of Process-Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes. Rule 12 of the Rules reads as under :
"12. Waiting List.-(i) A waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the posts of Process-servers. Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes.
No waiting list shall be maintained for chaukidars, malis, sweepers and waterman.
(ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of:
(a) all such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maximum age prescribed in Rule 8, and
(b) such candidates as are found guilty of insubordination, misbehavior or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunities to explain their conduct."
6. The aforesaid rule contemplates that the posts of Process-Server, Orderlies, Office Peon and Farrashes have to be filled up by the appointment of the candidates, whose names are found in the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules. This Rule further contemplates that the waiting list should be of "reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to remove therefrom the names of such candidates who are not likely to receive appointment before their attaining the maximum age prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules and for removing the names of such candidates who are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies.
7. In Ram Babu and Anr. v. District Judge, Banda, 1996 AWC 516, this Court held that the waiting list must be prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules before the occurrence of the vacancy and has to be utilized mainly for the purpose of filling in the substantive vacancy for the post of Process-Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes. This Court in the aforesaid judgment further held that the list could be utilized for making temporary or officiating appointments.
8. The expression "reasonable dimensions" as indicated above was explained in Ram Babu case (supra). This Court held :
"24. The use of the expression "reasonable dimensions" indicated above is of great significance. It seems to me that the expression "reasonable de-mesnsions" as used in Rule 12 of the Rules signifies that the waiting list should be a moderate one containing that number of candidates which is not less than or much in excess of the vacancies which might be available in the year of recruitment or the years succeeding thereto and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies. To be more precise, this waiting list should not be immoderate or excessive and must be co-related to the number of vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or likely to become available in the succeeding year and the proportion qua the existing and anticipated vacancies which must be clear should be in the proportion of 1:3 which proportion has to be accepted as a reasonable proportion. It may be emphasised that it is only in order to obviate the possibility of the waiting list becoming vitiated on account of the vice of arbitrariness or illegal discrimination that the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Rules specifically provide for maintaining a waiting list of a reasonable dimension. The work "dimension" has to be understood to emphasise the proportion qua the vacancies which are sought to be filled up."
9. In Ram Babu case (supra), it was also held that a waiting list of candidates contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules could not be deemed to subsist for a period beyond the filling up of the notified vacancies and that the waiting list could not subsist or remain operative for an indefinite period nor could the list be utilized for filling up the vacancies which had not been notified before the preparation of such a list. This court held that the waiting list would get exhausted the moment the notified vacancies are filled up by the candidates.
This Court further held :
"I am of the considered opinion that the waiting list contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules has to be of a reasonable proportion qua the number of vacancies actually notified and it will not be reasonable to hold that the vacancies which are notified may be of any year beyond the year succeeding to the year of recruitment."
10. In view of the aforesaid, the Court in Ram Babu's (supra) issued the following guidelines, namely, "50. Accordingly, let a direction issue requiring the District Judge referred to hereinabove to ensure that:
(a) all the available substantive vacancies in the posts covered by Rule 12 of the Rules or such vacancies which are likely to become available in the year of recruitment and the year succeeding, it be notified inviting applications before the preparation of the waiting list contemplated therein;
(b) the waiting list indicated above shall consist of the names of the candidates in the proportion of 1:3 qua the notified number of vacancies;
(c) the waiting list shall cease to be operative and stand exhausted on the filling up of the last notified vacancy;
(d) the fresh waiting list shall invariably be prepared before the accrual of the vacancies so that there may not be any unnecessary delay in its being filled up;
(e) all the existing 'waiting lists' prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules which have served their purpose as indicated hereinabove shall cease to be operative forthwith. The appointments already made' shall, however, remain undisturbed,"
11. In Muqeem Ahmad and Ors. v. District Judge, Sultanpur, 1999 (1) AWC 748, it was held that the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules stood exhausted the moment the last notified vacancy was filled up from the list and that it was not permissible to appoint all the candidates whose name have been incorporated in the waiting list over and above the vacancy notified.
12. In the present case admittedly five vacancies were notified and a list of 35 candidates was prepared. Candidates from serial Nos. 1 to 5 were filled up and, therefore, the notified vacancies came to an end. Accordingly, the waiting list stood exhausted. Further, I hold that the waiting list of 35 candidates was unreasonable and did not come within the parameter of "reasonable dimensions" as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules and therefore, this list was required to be scraped. In any case the notified vacancies got exhausted and consequently the waiting list came to an end and could not be utilized any further.
13. Thus, the waiting list of 35 candidates was not a correct list and stood exhausted upon the filling up of the notified vacancies. The contention of the learned Counsel that the list continues to remain operative and only gets exhausted when all the candidates are given appointment is wholly erroneous. The list gets exhausted the moment the notified vacancies are filled up by the selected candidates.
14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Judge had no power to seek instructions from the High Court, nor had any power to make a request to the High Court under the Rules. The learned Counsel further submitted that the High.Court and no power under the Rules to issue directions to the District Judge for cancellation of the waiting list.
15. The submission of the learned Counsel is devoid of any merit. Rule 12 indicates that the list should be revised from time to time. Therefore, the District Judge had the power to revise the waiting list. The revision of the list could be with or without material changes or could substitute or displace the original with a new one. Therefore, the District. Judge has the power to cancel the list under Rule 12 of the Rules while revising the list. The District Judge also has the power to seek instructions from the High Court and High Court has power to issue instructions to the District Judge on its administrative side.
16. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the waiting list prepared in 1986 should have been utilized til! serial No. 15 and only thereafter, a fresh list should have been prepared is also devoid of any merit. As held earlier the moment, the notified vacancies are filled up, the waiting list gets exhausted and the same could not be utilized for future vacancies.
17. In State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 765, the Supreme Court held that where a particular advertisement and the selection process was meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and was not meant to fill up the other vacancies, the merit list of 129 candidates prepared in the ratio of 1:4 on the basis of the written test as well as viva-voce was held to be only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies and no further. The moment the 32 vacancies were filled up the select list was exhausted and came to and end. The Supreme Court further held that if the same list was to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would amount to depriving the rights of other candidates who become eligible subsequently to the said advertisement and selection process.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.