D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy Labour Commissioner-respondent No. 1, from holding any fresh interview and further mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to implement the waiting list and not supersede the petitioners by appointing candidates pursuant to the fresh interview for the post of Peons and Chowkidars. 2. The brief facts are that the office of the Deputy Labour Commis sioner, Allahabad issued advertisement for the post of Peons/chowkidars in the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad. Inter alia the advertisement was published in daily aaj on 28-1-1988. The petitioners submitted their applications and were called for interview. It is said that 10 candidates out of 450 were selected and appointed with immediate effect and a list of 20 candidates as waiting list was prepared. According to counter-affidavit from the respondents only 8 vacancies existed but on the date of interview another vacancy existed hence only 9 candidates were selected against the existing vacancies arid not 10 candidates. A list of 24 candidates was prepared on the waiting list and not 20 candidates. Sri Rama Shanker and Durga Dutt from the waiting list were given appoint ment on 23-10-1989 and 26-10- 1989. The petitioners were not given any chance of appointment from the waiting list. The respondent No. 2 on 17-6-1992 called for fresh interview for the post of Peons/chowkidars. This subsequent interview is said to be illegal because the earlier waiting list has not exhausted and since only two persons from the waiting list were given appointment, the petitioners could not be excluded. It is also averred that the respondents are bound by the rule of promissory estoppel to appoint the petitioners. The fresh interview scheduled and held on 17-6-1992 is said to be mala fide. With these allegations the instant writ petition was filed supported by affidavit. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the opposite parties averred that out of 464 applicants only 282 appeared and after interview 9 candidates were selected against the existing vacancies. They were given appointment letter on 23-3-1988. A waiting list of 24 candidates was prepared in which the names of the petitioners appear at SI. Nos. 3, 4, 10 and 11. The candidates at SI. Nos. They were given appointment letter on 23-3-1988. A waiting list of 24 candidates was prepared in which the names of the petitioners appear at SI. Nos. 3, 4, 10 and 11. The candidates at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 of the waiting list, namely, Sri Durga Dutt and Rama Shanker were given appointment on 2^-3-1988 but for certain reasons and under the directions of the Government their order of appointment could not be given effect to and the same was stayed. These two candidates, namely, Sri Durga Dutt and Rama Shanker were permitted to take charge on 21-10-1988 though their order of appointment was issued on 25-3-1988. It is said that, under the relevant rules and Government orders, the number of candidates on the waiting list cannot exceed 25% of existing vacancy and since only 9 vacancies existed 25% of this figure comes to 2 only and the remaining waiting list was against the rules and Government orders relating to concerned department. The waiting list under the rules and Govern ment orders remained in force only for a period of one year and since waiting list exhausted after the expiry of one year of preparation of waiting list, no appointment could be given to the petitioners and there is no viola tion of any rule or any Article of the Constitution. 4. Supplementary counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and supplemen tary rejoinder-affidavits have also been seen. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that the waiting list once prepared will not exhaust till all the candi dates of the waiting list are given appointment. From the side of the State, the learned standing counsel contended that since the waiting list remains in force only for a period of one year from the date of its preparation it automatically exhausted. In order to appreciate this contention, relevant rules have to be kept in mind. 6. Amended Rule 19 (4) under Government order, dated 20-7-196 of U. P. Government Karmik Department-II provides that the number of selected candidates shall exceed the actual existing vacancies but it shall not exceed 25% of existing vacancies. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, relevant rules have to be kept in mind. 6. Amended Rule 19 (4) under Government order, dated 20-7-196 of U. P. Government Karmik Department-II provides that the number of selected candidates shall exceed the actual existing vacancies but it shall not exceed 25% of existing vacancies. 7. Amended Rule 21 further provides that such list shall be prepared as prescribed therein, namely, general candidates shall be put on serial No. 1 and then candidates from the reserved category and so on and the list so prepared shall remain in force for a period of one year only. 8. The above rules apply for Class-IV employees. There are two categories. One category consist of such departments where no rule is prescribed regarding the period for which waiting list of Class-IV employees shall remain in force. The other category is like the present one where the rules specifically laid down that waiting list even for Class-IV employees shall subsist only for a period of one year from the date of its preparation. 9. Some confusion arose in the cases falling under first category as to what should be the life of waiting list in those where no period is prescribed under the rules. In Sailesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U. P. , 1989 (15) ALR 13, the dispute was regarding the life of the list prepared for appoint ment of Pipelines Inspector pursuant to Rule 31 of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Servicesrules, 1966 which prescribed no particular period as to life of the list. A Division Bench of this Court in this case held that even though no parti cular period is prescribed for the life of a waiting list yet the same should not be given any extension beyond the period of 3 years from the date of preparation. To put it differently for the purposes of making an order for temporary appointment the list should be deemed to have exhausted itself on the expiry of 3 years from the date of its preparation. 10. This verdict cannot help the petitioners because their case is not under rule where the life of waiting list is uncertain. 11. To put it differently for the purposes of making an order for temporary appointment the list should be deemed to have exhausted itself on the expiry of 3 years from the date of its preparation. 10. This verdict cannot help the petitioners because their case is not under rule where the life of waiting list is uncertain. 11. In the case falling in the second category where the life of waiting list has been prescribed to be one year from the date of its preparation there is no reason why this rule should not be followed. The case reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1429 does not help the petitioners. This rule is hardly hit by Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, The rule referred to above namely Rule 21 is within the legislative competence and it does not amount to any discrimination. It has, therefore, to be held in the instant case that the life of the waiting list prepared on 6-3-1988 expired on 6-3-1989. Obviously, the petitioners were not given any appointment before 6-3-1989 hence they cannot be permitted to say that they are entitled to receive appointment even after one year of expiry of waiting list. The rule of promissory estoppel also does not help the petitioners because there was no promise made by the respondents that the petitioners shall be given appointment so long as the waiting list is not exhausted and all the persons in waiting list are not given appointment. There can be no estoppel asainst the statute. The rule referred to above, have statutory force and under the said rules the life of the waiting list cannot be extended beyond one year. 12. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the waiting list itself was contrary to amended Rule 19 (4) referred to above. Under this rule the waiting list cannot be more than 25% of existing vacancies. Advertisement was notified for 8 existing vacancies but on the date of interview one more clear vacancy arose and in this way 25% of 9 existing vacancies will not exceed two, in any case. Preparation of waiting list of 24 candidates was, therefore, contrary to Rule 19 (4) of the Rules referred to above. Advertisement was notified for 8 existing vacancies but on the date of interview one more clear vacancy arose and in this way 25% of 9 existing vacancies will not exceed two, in any case. Preparation of waiting list of 24 candidates was, therefore, contrary to Rule 19 (4) of the Rules referred to above. If the waiting list itself was contrary to rules, it cannot be enforced nor it can be said that the petitioners are entitled to receive appointment under such waiting list. 13. From the counter-affidavit it is clear that two persons S/sri Rama Shanker and Durga Dutt at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 of the waiting list were given appointment on 25-3-1988 but for certain reasons and under the instruction of the Government their appointment was stayed and that they were given appointment on 21-10-1989. It was contended that since these two persons were given appointment on 21-10-1989 i. e. after one year of preparation of waiting list, the petitioners are also entitled to appointment. This conten tion cannot be accepted because these two persons were given appoiniment on 25-3-1988. If for some reason, though not specified, their appointments were stayed and they were actually appointed and given charge on 21-10-1989 it cannot be accepted that the life of the waiting list was extended beyond one year. 14. It was also contended that subsequent interview proposed to be held on 17-6-1992 is not permissible. This contention has also no force. Once the earlier waiting list exhausted, the respondents were free to adver tise fresh post and could take interview on subsequent date even after 1992. The earlier waiting list exhausted in the year 1989. Consequently, the interview for fresh appointment on 17- 6-1992 cannot be said to be invalid. If this interview cannot be said to be invalid, then the order of this Court contained in Annexure SA-1 passed on 17-6-1992 reserving 4 posts for the petitioners cannot be of any help to the petitioners. Unless it is held that the petitioners are entitled to get appointment from the previous waiting list, the interim order dated 17-6-1992 cannot be construed in a manner to entitle them to appointment from the earlier list which has outlived its life. 15. In view of the above discussions it can be concluded that the waiting list was not prepared in accordance with existing rules. 15. In view of the above discussions it can be concluded that the waiting list was not prepared in accordance with existing rules. In the waiting list only two names could be included and those two persons were at SI. Nos. I and 2 who were already given appointment. In this way, waiting list of two candidates exhausted within one year inasmuch as their appointment orders were passed within one year. As a consequence thereof further interview held on 17-6-1992 is not invalid and subsequent appoint ment against clear vacancy is also not invalid or irregular. Consequently, no mandamus can be issued commanding the respondent. No. 1 to appoint the petitioners or further commanding them to implement the waiting list and not to hold any fresh interview for the post of Peons and Chowkidars. 16. In the result the writ petition is devoid of merit and is bound to fail. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .