JUDGMENT B Dikshit, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of District Judge, Azamgarh dated 26-10-1990 whereby he cancelled the existing waiting list prepared on 17-5-1986 in pursuance of an advertisement dated 24-10-1985 for the posts of process servers, Orderlies etc. The list cancelled was being maintained by District Judge, Azamgarh under Rule 12(i) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (in short Rules). Besides seeking quashing of the order dated 26-10-1990 of the District Judge, Azamgarh the Petitioners have also sought the relief of writ of mandamus for issuing, directions against the District Judge, Azamgarh. The District Judge Maunath Bhanjan (in short 'Mau') and the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to provide employment to Petitioners in accordance with the said waiting list. 2. Counter -affidavit and Rejoinder affidavit being filed, the case is being disposed of at the stage of admission in accordance with rules of the Court. 3. The undisputed facts are that by an advertisement dated 24-10-1986 six vacancies of Class IV were advertised for being filled up by direct recruitment on the post of Orderlies. Applications were invited to fill up the posts. The last date for submitting applications was 20-1-1986 and selection was held on 4-5-1986, when candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee. The result of selection gave rise to a select list of 43 candidates. This select list is also known as waiting list for the purpose of Rule 12(i). The District Judge appointed candidates placed at serial nos. 1 to 16, leaving candidates from serial nos. .17 to 43 on the waiting list. This waiting list was for the Judgeship of Azamgarh in accordance with Rule 12(i). The District Judge, Azamgarh allowed continuance of candidates placed at serial nos. 12 to 16 of the list till they were dropped by the District Judge, Azamgarh on 8-J2-1986. Subsequently, the District Judge, Azamgarh cancelled the waiting list. The effect of the cancellation of waiting list was that only 11 persons selected at said selection could get appointment. Feeling aggrieved by order of cancellation of waiting list, the candidates at serial numbers 12 to 19 and 26 filed Writ Petition No. 1081 of 1987 before this Court. This writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court which quashed the order of District Judge, Azamgarh on 4-8-1987 and, therefore, the waiting list revived. Feeling aggrieved by order of cancellation of waiting list, the candidates at serial numbers 12 to 19 and 26 filed Writ Petition No. 1081 of 1987 before this Court. This writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court which quashed the order of District Judge, Azamgarh on 4-8-1987 and, therefore, the waiting list revived. After quashing of the order of the District Judge, Azamgarh, candidates on the waiting list at serial number 12 to 19 were also given appointments. While other candidates who were on the waiting list were awaiting appointments, a new Judgeship at Mau was created. The new Judgeship was carved out from certain areas of Azamgarh and Ballia Judgeships. For manning the newly established Judgeship of Mau directions were issued by High Court, which were circulated by Joint Registrar of the High Court by letter No. 11307/Main-A/Admin (D) dated Alld. November 16, 1989. The directions in respect of class IV employees were that employees who opt to be transferred from the Judgeship of Azamgarh and Ballia, which were described as parent Judgeships ,were to be transferred to new Judgeship of Mau. This letter of Additional Registrar was silent on the question as to how the posts which remained vacant after absorption of transferred employees of Class IV were to be filled up. To fill up the posts which remained vacant at Mau Judgeship, the District Judge, Mau advertised them on 21-6-90. A selection was held by the District Judge, Mau at which a list of 45 candidates was prepared, Out of the list only 26 candidates of the list were given appointments by District Judge, Mau. The District Judge Mau made these appointments subject to decision of Writ Petition No. 21262 of 1990 pending before this Court. Feeling aggrieved from said selection and appointment at Mau Judgeship, the Petitioners have approached this Court claiming that the candidates who were on the waiting list of Azamgarh Judgeship maintained under Rule 12. which included the Petitioners, the candidates were to be appointed at Mau Judgeship. The Petitioners have sought relief of Mandamus claiming that they be appointed on vacancies of Mau Judgeship. 4. which included the Petitioners, the candidates were to be appointed at Mau Judgeship. The Petitioners have sought relief of Mandamus claiming that they be appointed on vacancies of Mau Judgeship. 4. Soon after the selection and appointments at Mau, Judgeship, the District Judge, Azamgarh, by Order dated 26-10-1990 declared that the waiting list will be deemed exhausted and directed to make note to this effect in the list regarding candidates at serial number 20 to 43. The District Judge, treated list exhausted as according to him the life of list was three years and he had no power to extend this period of three years. In arriving to this conclusion, be relied upon the decisions of Shailesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. 1989 (15) ALR 13 and a commentators comment on the Rules. The Petitioners who are amongst candidates at serial nos. 20 to 43 on waiting list have filed this petition also seeking the relief to quash the order dated 26-10-1990 by which the District Judge held the waiting list exhausted. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has advanced two fold arguments The first argument is that the list could not be declared exhausted due to expiry of three years. According to the arguments advanced unless all candidates on the waiting list get appointment it did not exhaust. The second argument advanced is that the vacancies at newly created Judgeship of Mau were to be filled up by appointment of candidates of Azamgarh Judgeship's waiting list as Azamgarh Judgeship was parent Judgeship, the major part of which constituted Mau Judgeship. 6. The first question which arise for determination in this case is as to whether the waiting list will be deemed to have exhausted after expiry of the three years from the date of Us preparation and the candidates who could not be appointed within that period of three years could not be given appointment ? The argument of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the waiting list once prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules, is a list which could exhaust after appointment of all candidates except persons who became disentitled for appointment under Rule' 12(2)(ii). He argued that the District Judge, has misconstrued the rule in limiting the life span of waiting list to three years from the date of its preparation. He argued that the District Judge, has misconstrued the rule in limiting the life span of waiting list to three years from the date of its preparation. As the District Judge Azamgarh relied an the ease of Shailesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. (supra) in limiting the life span of waiting list to three years, the learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that the Rule 12 in respect of waiting list maintained by the District Judge is much different from rules which came up for consideration in the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena (supra) and, therefore, the principles of law enunciated in that decision is inapplicable in determining the life-span of the waiting list maintained under said Rule. 7. Rule 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts inferior Establishment Rules reads as follows : 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, rnalis, sweepers and waterman. (ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to removing there from the names or: (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, misbehaviour or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunities to explain their conduct. 8. On a plain reading of the Rule it is clear that a waiting list of reasonable dimension is to be maintained by each judgeship. This list is to be revised from time to time. The rule nowhere limits the life span of waiting list to three years from the date of its preparation, either expressly or impliedly. According to Rule, the name of these candidates from waiting list are to be removed at the time of revision, who are not likely to receive appointments before attaining maximum age prescribed for appointment under Rule 8 as well as the names of such candidates is also to be removed who are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies. The revision of waiting list from time to time and continuance of eligible candidates names on the list indicates that the rule contemplates appointments are to be made of every candidate of the list on his own turn on occurrence of vacancy. The rule do not permit refusal of appointment of any candidate, who is on waiting list, due to lapse of period of three years after preparation of waiting list. Limiting the life span of the waiting list appears to be repugnant to the nature of waiting list which is required to be maintained under Rule 12. As the rule stands, each and every candidate who is on the waiting list is entitled for appointment on his own turn and there is no indication in rule to consider the list exhausted with efflux of time. In absence of any such indication in the rule, the list has to be treated exhausted after appointment of all the candidates entitled for appointment. For said reason, the candidate on waiting list could not be refused appointment merely because three years elapsed from the date of preparation of waiting list. The view taken by the District Judge, Azamgarh, that the waiting list will be deemed to have exhausted with efflux of time do not find support from the Rule as it stands. 9. The view that the life span of the waiting list is not limited to three years finds support from a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Pati Ram v. District Judge, Azamgarh (supra) in which the waiting list of present dispute was the subject matter of dispute of that case also. The observation which supports said view, is as follows : ...the rules do not place any time limit that is of one or two or three years for the exhaustion of list..... 10. It is relevant to mention that the Petitioner Bhagwan Das was one of the Petitioner in that writ petition also i e he was one of the Petitioner in writ petition of Shri Pati Ram and others who challenged the order of the District Judge, Azamgarh, when he cancelled the waiting list earlier on 19-12-1986 which stood revived due to success of Petitioners of that petition. 11. 11. So far present petition is concerned, the District Judge has relied on the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena v State of U.P. (Supra) and a commentary for arriving at conclusion that the waiting list will be deemed to have exhausted with efflux of time, which is three years according to him. Even in the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena (Supra) it was observed by the Court that in absence of rule either way there was no reason to limit life of the list prepared for appointments. The Court observed : ...In the absence of any rule either way, we see no reason to limit the life of the list prepared either for making permanent appointment or temporary appointment. We also have no rational reason for taking the view that the life of the list enures till if is exhausted.... This part of the Judgment fully endorses the view that I have taken above in respect of waiting list in dispute. However, in the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena (Supra) (he Court was of the view that some reasonable period be assigned otherwise the list will last for indefinite period till it is exhausted. In that case the Court could rely on the past practice of the State Government which was accepted to extend the life of the list for a period of three years. It was for that reason that the Court considered period of three years as reasonable. There is nothing of the kind so far present case is concerned. The present case is distinguishable with that for two reasons. Firstly, the Rule under consideration in the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena (Supra) did not provide for revision of waiting list from time to time due to which the list was to be continued till exhausted. It was for indefinite period which required appointments even if a person was overage whereas the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules is to be revised from time to time removing the names of persons who attained maximum age for appointment, who could not be appointed being not on the said list. It was for indefinite period which required appointments even if a person was overage whereas the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules is to be revised from time to time removing the names of persons who attained maximum age for appointment, who could not be appointed being not on the said list. Secondly, the list of present case came up for consideration in the case of Shri Pati Ram (Supra) also where this Court upheld the present list and recommended reference of the matter to Rules Committee so that expression reasonable dimension in respect of maintenance of waiting list which may shorten the list under by the rules so that it is not unwieldy but the list has been upheld by the Court for appointments. For said reasons the District Judge Azamgarh, erred in extending the principles enunciated in the case of Shailesh Chandra Saxena (Supra) for limiting the life of impugned waiting list to three years. 12. For all that has been said above, I hold that the District Judge, Azamgarh erred in deeming the impugned list exhausted in respect of candidates who were at serial number 20 to 43. The waiting list continues to hold good till last candidate is appointed provided the candidate was not only removed but was not liable to be removed by the time his turn came up for appointment on occurrence of vacancy. For said reason the impugned order of District Judge, Azamgarh dated 26-10-1990 is liable to be quashed. 13. The next question for consideration is as to whether candidates on waiting list of Judgeship of Azamgarh were entitled for appointment on vacancies at newly carved out Mau Judgeship ? Rule 12 requires maintenance of separate waiting list of each Judgeship. Mau Judgeship has been carved out by taking out certain area from the jurisdiction of the Judgeship of Azam garh and Ballia The Rules are silent in respect of appointment on vacancies at newly created Judgeships. The Judgeship of Mau has been created by carving out areas of two Judgeships, each of which has to maintain a separate waiting list for its Judgeship. In absence of any guideline in Rules, it is not feasible to combine the waiting list of two Judgeships and determine placement of each candidate for preparing a combined waiting list of two Judgeships for making appointment. 14. In absence of any guideline in Rules, it is not feasible to combine the waiting list of two Judgeships and determine placement of each candidate for preparing a combined waiting list of two Judgeships for making appointment. 14. The learned Counsel far Petitioner tried to answer this difficulty by arguing that as the new Judgeship has been carved out from the major portion of Azamgarh Judgeship therefore, the candidates on waiting list of Azamgarh Judgeship are entitled for appointment. This argument can not be accepted. Under Rule 12 the waiting list is for each Judgeship and, therefore, once a new Judgeship is created, the waiting list for appointment at vacancies of that Judgeship has to be prepared in accordance with Rules. These Rules do not contemplate any appointment from the waiting list of parent Judgeship, specially when a new Judgeship has been carved out of the areas of two Judgeships. Besides aforesaid reason, the argument advanced be learned Counsel for Petitioners can not be accepted for another reason as permitting appointments from waiting list of Judgeship of Azamgarh would give undue advantage to candidates of waiting list of Azamgarh Judgeship over those who are on the wailing list of Ballia Judgeship. There is no valid reason for permitting appointment of Mau Judgeship from waiting list of Azamgarh Judgeship and not from Ballia Judgeship when the new Judgeship has been carved out from the areas of both the Judgeships. For above reasons so far selection and appointment by District Judge, Mau are concerned, the District Judge Mau rightly held fresh selection and made appointments on vacancies at his Judgeship. 15. The learned Counsel for Petitioner also referred to the letter dated 19-3 -1990 of the Deputy Registrar, High Court, Allahabad whereby absorption was permitted of existing staff of parent Judgeship to newly created Judgeship. He argued that on vacancies of newly created Judgeship, the candidates on waiting list are also entitled for same benefit as existing employees were given. The Petitioners have not been appointed as yet and they can not claim benefit for appointment merely because some existing employees of Azamgarh or Ballia Judgeships, being parent Judgeship of Mau, were given option for being transferred to Mau Judgeship. The Petitioners have not been appointed as yet and they can not claim benefit for appointment merely because some existing employees of Azamgarh or Ballia Judgeships, being parent Judgeship of Mau, were given option for being transferred to Mau Judgeship. The letter permits absorption of existing employees of parent Judgeship and there being nothing in respect of candidates on waiting list, the Petitioner can not get any benefit from such directions in respect of existing employees. There is no reasonable basis on which Petitioner can claim any relief from this Court on such a ground. 16. In this case as 1 am of the view that impugned order is liable to be quashed, which is of 26-10-1990 some difficulty may arise in implementing it, as some posts on which Petitioner could be posted might have been filled up. To avoid any difficulty in implementation of order 1 consider it necessary to issue directions for its implementation so that any appointment made on any post by the District Judge, Azamgarh on which candidate from waiting list were to be appointed remains undisturbed while implementing this order : To implement this order : (i) the District Judge Azamgarh will determine as to how many vacancies existed on the date of passing the impugned order i.e. 26-10-1990. (ii) the District Judge Azamgarh will place so many candidates as entitled to be appointed in a list, in seriatim ,as many vacancies existed on that date. (iii) the District Judge, Azamgarh will go on determining date of further vacancies and place the candidates in seriatim next to candidates in the list of direction (ii) so as to exhaust the list upto serial nos. 43. (iv) the District Judge Azamgarh will examine eligibility of each candidate and drop those persons who could not have been appointed being over-age on the date when vacancy on which they are entitled to be considered. The District Judge Azamgarh will remove the name of the candidates from list so prepared who could not have been appointed on the date of occurrence of vacancies on their turn from waiting list as they would have been over-age. The District Judge Azamgarh will remove the name of the candidates from list so prepared who could not have been appointed on the date of occurrence of vacancies on their turn from waiting list as they would have been over-age. (v) the District Judge, Azamgarh will make appointment of each candidate from so prepared list on existing vacancies and in case the list is not exhausted at: initial stage for want of vacancies then he will appoint candidates from this list if and when vacancies occur. Any candidate who is ineligible under Rule 12(ii)(b) of U. P Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules 1953, will not be appointed by the District Judge. (vi) the candidate appointed under aforesaid directions will be entitled for all tie benefits which they would have received had the impugned order been not passed but they will be entitled for salary and other financial benefits from the date they are appointed They will not be entitled for any payment whatsoever for any period before they are actually appointed i.e. no, payment is to be made for the period they have not worked. 17. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26-10-1990 of the District Judge, Azamgarh is quashed and the District Judge, Azamgarh is directed to make appointment of candidates ON the waiting list prepared on 17-5-1986 and maintained u/s 12 of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules 1955 which was declared exhausted by the District Judge by order dated 26-10-1990'. The appointments from the waiting list will be in accordance with the directions contained in body of judgment. Costs on parties.