G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Uma Shankar filed the writ petition praying that a writ, order, or direction be issued to the District Judge, Firozabad, to fill up the existing 14 vacancies as per Government order dated 2. 2. 1996. A further prayer was made that a writ of mandamus b e issued to District judge, Firozabad, to allow the petitioner to work on Class III post against the existing 12 vacancies. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the judgment and order dated 8. 2. 2002. ( 3 ) AN examination was held in accordance with the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial establishments Rules, 1947, for making appointment on posts in ministerial cadre in civil court, firozabad. The result of the examination was declared on 22. 5. 1992 and a list of candidates containing 120 names was prepared. At the time of holding of examination, there were only 12 vacancies and the name of the appellant. Uma Shanker, was shown at Serial No. 85 in the merit list. Thus, he could not get appointment on any post. It appears that a number of employees of the civil courts proceeded on leave and in the aforesaid leave vacancy, he was permitted to work for a short period from 23. 6. 1992 to 1. 7. 1992. The writ petition was filed in the year 1999 for the reliefs mentioned earlier. The learned single Judge held that the life of the select list is only one year and, therefore, it was not possible to give appointment to the writ petitioner on the basis of the select list which had been prepared in the year 1992. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. ( 5 ) RULE 14 (3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, clearly provides that the life of the list is only one year. This question has been considered by a Full bench of this Court in Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1996 (3) AWC 1249 : 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1037 , and it has been held that the life of the select list is only one year. This question has been considered by a Full bench of this Court in Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1996 (3) AWC 1249 : 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1037 , and it has been held that the life of the select list is only one year. It has been further held that a person who has been given a short-term appointment on ad hoc basis cannot claim appointment on substantive basis on the strength of such short-term appointment. Learned counsel has submitted that the Full Bench has not taken notice of Rule 16 and, therefore, the view taken that the short-term appointment on ad hoc basis cannot give a right to claim appointment on substantive basis is not correct. In our opinion, Rule 16 can have no application here as it talks of "reversion" of an employee. Termination of service of a person who has been given short-term appointment cannot be said to be reversion. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that at the time when the examination was held in May, 1992, there were only 12 vacancies, yet a list of 120 candidates was prepared. This, in our opinion, was wholly unwarranted. It was a long time thereafter in the year 1996 that 12 more posts were sanctioned. The appellant, on the strength of the examination held in the year 1992, cannot have any right to claim that he should be appointed on a post which has been created in the year 1996. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the special appeal which is hereby dismissed. .