RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed as paid apprentice/clerks in the office of the District Judge, Pilibhit. They claim the following reliefs in this petition: (a) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of this Court on administrative side communicated through the letter dated 5-12-1989 (Annexure No. 17) so far as it stands against the petitioners. (b) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the select list published on 19-8-1987 to be continuing to be operative so far as the petitioners are concerned and not to ignore it on the ground that the same had exhausted. (c) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies which have come into existence in the month of March, 1989 treating the same as vacant. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were selected in the examination held under the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 for the vacancies of ministerial establishment of the Pilibhit Judgeship, which occurred in the year 1986-87 in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (b) of sub- section (1) and Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and in supersession of all existing rules and orders on the subject. 4. It is alleged that the petitioners were selected in May, 1987 in terms of Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Rules. These rules which are now NOT in force, are as under: 9. Method of recruitment.-Early in each year, or as the circumstances may require each District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. 10. Application of recruitment.-Applications for recruitment shall be invited by the District Judge in Form A in Appendix 1 by advertising in the papers, circulating in the locality, the number of candidates to be recruited and the date of the examination. Every such application shall be put up before the District Judge and its receipt acknowledged. 11. 10. Application of recruitment.-Applications for recruitment shall be invited by the District Judge in Form A in Appendix 1 by advertising in the papers, circulating in the locality, the number of candidates to be recruited and the date of the examination. Every such application shall be put up before the District Judge and its receipt acknowledged. 11. Recruitment.-The recruitment shall be based on the results of a competitive examination and an interview by the District Judge at the headquarters of the judgeship. The examination and the interview shall be held in the manner laid down in Appendix II: Provided that the District Judge may delegate any or more of the functions other than the functions of interviewing the candidates to a Senior Judge or Senior Munsif in respect of the examination held under this rule". 5. Rules 9 to 11 stand suspended and are no more in force after the Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950 were promulgated. Rules 3, 4, 5 and 7 of these Rules of 1950 apply to the Civil Court establishment also. So, while making the recruitment for Class III posts in the judgeship, the aforesaid rules will have to be followed. 6. The 1950 Rules have not been repealed by the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 (1975 Rules) in-so-far as the Subordinate Civil Courts are concerned. It is true that the Rule 20 of the 1975 Rules stated that 1950 Rules had been repealed. But the 1975 Rules did not apply to the Subordinate Courts under the control and superintendence of the High Court. Hence the 1950 Rules in-sofar as they applied to the Subordinate Courts continued to be inforce ( AIR 1986 SC 1043 ). 7. It is contended that the Petitioner No. 3 was a confirmed employee of Class IV cadre and was eligible for consideration to the post of Class III under the promotion quota, for which a separate examination was held. It is stated that Petitioner No. 3 appeared in the aforesaid examination and was declared successful. Pursuance to the selection a final select list was published on 19-8-1987, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, in which the names of the petitioners find place at Serial Nos. 24, 26 and 27 and that their names were also entered in the bound register at Serial Nos. Pursuance to the selection a final select list was published on 19-8-1987, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, in which the names of the petitioners find place at Serial Nos. 24, 26 and 27 and that their names were also entered in the bound register at Serial Nos. 84, 85 and 86 respectively under Rule 14 (1) of the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. 8. Letters of appointments show that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were appointed as Paid apprentice, whereas Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Clerk. After few days the petitioners ceased to work on account of non-availability of work. The petitioners submit that when the work again became available, they moved an application dated 28-8-1989 for appointment against vacancies. The District Judge, Pilibhit informed the petitioners that no appointments were being made. The petitioners moved representation dated 2-9-1989 to the District Judge, Pilibhit re-asserting that there were vacancies available. 9. It appears from the record that the District Judge issued advertisement in the news-paper on 9-9- 1989 inviting applications for appointment for two posts of Clerks. A notice dated 21-9-1989 was got pasted on the notice board, wherein two posts of Clerks were sought to be filled up from the promotional quota. 10. Petitioner No. 3 claims that he could have been adjusted against the said vacancies but inspite of vacancies being available, petitioners were not appointed. Again an advertisement was published on 21- 9-1989 inviting the applications against five posts of Clerks, vide Annexure 13 to the petition. The petitioner moved another representation, which was rejected by the District Judge, vide order dated 15- 9-1989 which reads as under: "seen. The representation does not lie to me. The applicants have never been given regular appointments. They served in leave vacancies for short terms, hence no merit. Rejected. " 11. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, the petitioners preferred a representation to the Honble Administrative Judge on 6-10-1989, on which the following order was passed: "d. J. Pilibhit to send his comments. The result of the examination, which has been held for recruitment of the Clerks on October 5th, 1989 should not be published till further orders. " 12. It is alleged that this order was communicated to the District Judge, Pilibhit on 7th October, 1989 who however prepared a fresh list on 6-11-1989 and issued appointment letters in favour of 16 persons. " 12. It is alleged that this order was communicated to the District Judge, Pilibhit on 7th October, 1989 who however prepared a fresh list on 6-11-1989 and issued appointment letters in favour of 16 persons. This show that there were atleast 16 posts available at that time in this district. 13. In the meantime, the representation of the petitioners, Annexure No. 15 to the petition was disposed of by the then Honble Administrative Judge, Zone V and the decision was communicated to the petitioners through the Deputy Registrar by post vide letter dated 5-12-1989, Annexure No. 17 to the petition, wherein it was directed that names of the petitioners be placed at the bottom of the list of Class III employees and they shall be given appointments as and when the vacancies occur. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed to instant petition. 14. It is argued that the petitioners were selected and their names were entered in the bound register maintained under Rule 14 (1) of the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and in the counter affidavit filed by the District Judge. 15. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioners were given temporary appointments against leave vacancies but no material has been placed in support thereof. It is also not denied that the examination was held and the petitioners were selected. No reason has been given why the petitioners could not be appointed when vacancies were available. The appointment letters do not show that their appointments were made against leave vacancies and the petitioners were given temporary appointments. The petitioners have relied upon the following cases in support of the contentions: (1) 1990 (2) SCC Page 539, M. P. Pradhan v. Union of India and others (2) 1999 (1) UPLBEC Page 575, Sanjeev Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and another ; and (3) 1980 UPLBEC 1999 Page 225, Dr. (Kumari) Ranjana Saxena v. Vice Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and others. 16. The aforesaid cases cited by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and grounds: (a) In the case of M. P. Pradhan v. Union of India and others, the appellants joined service as paid apprentice on substantive and permanent post. (Kumari) Ranjana Saxena v. Vice Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and others. 16. The aforesaid cases cited by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and grounds: (a) In the case of M. P. Pradhan v. Union of India and others, the appellants joined service as paid apprentice on substantive and permanent post. In the instant case, Petitioner No. 1, Anil Kumar Saxena, has worked only for a period of 43 days and the remaining two petitioners, namely Asar Hussain and Sita Ram Prabhati, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have worked only for a period of seven days each. In the said case the appellant joined service as paid apprentice in the Collectorate of Etawah on July 1, 1937. On the same day he was back to officiate in the post of Arranger. He was sent back to the post of apprentice on December 24, 1937 but was again appointed as Arranger in officiating capacity on January 3, 1938. While working on the post of paid apprentice he worked on various posts on officiating basis. He was promoted and appointed to a permanent post of Copyist in a substantive capacity on August 1, 1941. He came to the Government of India on deputation in March, 1943 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years in February, 1976 and claimed that having entered Government service on permanent basis before March 31-1938 he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) (i) and his retirement on attaining the age of 58 was illegal. (b) In the case of Sanjeev Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and another, it was held that the appointment made on the substantive vacancy by general notification through duly constituted Selection Committee but the appointment letter showing it to be temporary appointment is liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. It was held that such appointment will be deemed in substantive capacity and not temporary. In the present case at hand, the vacancies were not substantive or permanent and appointment as paid apprentice could be made only for a maximum period of one year under the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. (c) In the case of Dr. It was held that such appointment will be deemed in substantive capacity and not temporary. In the present case at hand, the vacancies were not substantive or permanent and appointment as paid apprentice could be made only for a maximum period of one year under the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. (c) In the case of Dr. (Kumari) Ranjana Saxena v. Vice Chancellor, Rohilkhand University Bareilly and others, the dispute was in regards to the appointment under Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and Clause 31 of the first Statute of University, Rohilkhand, Statute 10. 06. The Court on the basis of the first Statutes of the University of Rohilkhand read with Section 31 held that Section 31 does not contemplate any temporary appointment on a substantive post. These cases, therefore, do not help the case of the petitioners. 17. Rules 14 (1) and 14 (3) Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 provides that the names of candidates recruited in accordance with Rule 12 shall be entered in order of merit in a Bound Register in Form (B) prescribed and each entry shall be initialled and dated by the District Judge after he has inspected the original of attested copies of certificates. Rule 14 (3) provides that in case such candidates have not been given appointment offered in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 within one year from the date of his recruitment his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates and he must take his chance with others for recruitment again in a subsequent year. 18. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that both the aforesaid Rules apply to the candidates, who have been recruited in accordance with Rules 9 to 12 of the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. The benefit of these rules is not available to the appointments on leave vacancies. The successful candidates do not acquire indifeasable rights. 19. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (1) 1994 (2) AWC 1026, S. N. Singh and others v. State of U. P. and another. (2) Judgment in Writ Petition No. 30487 of 1990, Bhagwan Dass and another v. The District Judge, Azamgarh and others. 19. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (1) 1994 (2) AWC 1026, S. N. Singh and others v. State of U. P. and another. (2) Judgment in Writ Petition No. 30487 of 1990, Bhagwan Dass and another v. The District Judge, Azamgarh and others. (3) Judgment in Writ Petition No. 9967 of 1983, Vijay Bahadur Yadav and another v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others. In S. N. Singhs case the Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of Rules 9, 14 and 15 of the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and confirmed the findings of Single Judge in Special Appeal No. 263 of 1963 stating that the appellants did not acquire any right to claim continuance of their names in the register of the recruited candidates. The learned Single Judge has further held that in view of Rule 9 of the Rules, recruitment is made to make appointment against vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year and not to make appointment against vacancies occurring beyond the year. On this basis he had held that the appellants cannot claim appointment against the vacancies after the expiry of the period of one year contemplated by the Rules. Cancellation of the list of the year 1996 has, therefore, been held to suffer from no infirmity. With these findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the three petitions. Rule 9 provides: "early in each year, or as the circumstances may require, each District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. " From the emphasised portion, it is clear that the recruitment is to be confined to the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. Thus, a list of candidates cannot be prepared to make appointment to posts falling vacant beyond one year of recruitment. From the appellants allegations, it is apparent that the enlistment was far in excess of the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. As already mentioned as many as 61 candidates were empanelled, against which 23 candidates were appointed. The remaining appointments were made in December, 1987, 1988 and 1989. From the appellants allegations, it is apparent that the enlistment was far in excess of the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. As already mentioned as many as 61 candidates were empanelled, against which 23 candidates were appointed. The remaining appointments were made in December, 1987, 1988 and 1989. These appointments were, obviously, made against vacancies which occurred after expiry of the period of one year contemplated by Rule 9. The appellants do not claim that the persons, who were appointed in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 were junior to them. Hence the appellants cannot claim appointment now. Rule 14 (3) of the Rules reads as under: "if any such candidates has not been given an appointment (offered) in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under sub-rule (1) within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall be automatically removed from register of recruited candidates and he must then take his chance with other for recruitment again in a subsequent year. " Thus those candidates who fail to get appointment within the said period go out of the list. The appellants admittedly had been appointed against leave vacancies before the expiry of the period of one year. The appointment referred to in Rule 14 (3) is obviously referrable to appointment in pursuance of enlistment under Rule 9. Rule 9 refers to the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. Assessment of such vacancies is possible only in respect of substantive vacancies. At the begining of the year it is not possible to make assessment of vacancies likely to occur on account of grant of leave. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Rule 14 (3) does not protect appointments against leave vacancies. The appellants acquired no right to claim continuance of their names on the list of recruited candidates. 20. The intention of the Rules is that recruitment has to be made every year and only such numbers of candidates have to be selected as required to fill the vacancies of the following year. 21. The appellants acquired no right to claim continuance of their names on the list of recruited candidates. 20. The intention of the Rules is that recruitment has to be made every year and only such numbers of candidates have to be selected as required to fill the vacancies of the following year. 21. Similarly, the facts in the judgment in Writ Petition No. 30487 of 1990, Bhagwan Dass and others v. District Judge, Azamgarh and others and Writ Petition No. 9967 of 1983, V. B. Yadav and another v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, are different and do not support the contentions of the petitioners. 22. I, therefore, hold that the names of the petitioners recorded in accordance with Rule 12 of the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 in the bound register does not give them a right to the absorption against the vacancies, which had come into existence after the recruitment or appointment. The Select List prepared under Rule 12 of the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 so far as the petitioners were concerned cannot be deemed to have continued and till the petitioners were absorbed. 23. The Counsel for the respondents has referred to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, sworn by Mohd. Sabir, that in August 1987 selections were held by the respondents for recruitment against 13 vacancies and list of 28 approved candidates was prepared and Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as paid apprentice at fixed pay of Rs. 350 on purely temporary capacity on 21-5-1988. 24. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Clerk in grade of Rs. 350-550 on purely temporary capacity on 25- 5-1988 and Petitioner No. 3 was appointed as paid apprentice in fixed pay scale of Rs. 350 per month on temporary capacity on 25-5-1988 and that their appointments were temporary on short term leave vacancies. 25. The Select List in the instant case was prepared on 19-8-1997, which expired on 19-8-1988 i. e. after a period of one year. As such no direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to treat the select list published on 19-8-1987 to be continuing or operative or to petitioners against these vacancies, which had come into existence in the month of March, 1989. 26. As such no direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to treat the select list published on 19-8-1987 to be continuing or operative or to petitioners against these vacancies, which had come into existence in the month of March, 1989. 26. The Counsel for the respondents referred to AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2173, State of U. P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others. It has been held in paragraph 10 of the judgment that: "nothwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some early decisions of the came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of it, is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the writ petitioners. " 27. Secondly, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, period of working of the aforesaid petitioners are given as below: SL NO NAMES PERIOD OF WORKING TOTAL DAYs 1. Anil Kumar Saxena, Petitioner No. 1, from 21-5-1988 to 2-6-1988 and from 1-10-1988 to 31-10-1988, 43 Days 2. , Asar Hussain, Petitioner No. 2, from 25-5-1988 to 31-5-1988, 07 Days 3. , Sita Ram Prabhati, Petitioner No. 3, from 25-5-1988 to 31-5-1988, 07 Days 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioners, who have worked only for a short periods do not acquire any legal right as they were not appointed against substantive vacancies and the life of the select list having been exhausted the petitioners cannot be appointed against the vacancies now, which had come into existence in the month of March, 1989, after gap of 12 years. 29. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. .