ORDER : N.K. Mehrotra, J. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment against Class-IV post in pursuance of the select list prepared in the year 1987 in the Judgeship of Faizabad. It is also prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be also issued to quash all the appointments of the candidates made in the year 1989 out of 1987 select list whose names came after Petitioner's serial No. 29. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that in the year 1987 a select list/waiting list was prepared in the Judgeship of Faizabad for appointment of Class IV employees under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955. Thirty three candidates were placed in the select list/waiting list. The said select list/waiting list 33 candidates were placed. The Petitioner was placed at serial No. 29 of the said list. The candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 15, were given appointments to Class IV posts. Subsequently, in July, 1989, the list was revised and the names of Subedar Mishra, Kanhaiya Lal Pandey and Siya Ram at serial Nos. 16, 17, and 32 were deleted as they had become overage but later on, the name of Subedar Mishra was restored because of enhancement of upper age limit. It is also alleged that on 18.6.1989, the District Judge, Faizabad deleted the names of the remaining candidates placed at serial Nos. 21 to 31 and 33 in the waiting list. The candidate at serial No. 32 was already deleted in July, 1989. Since the names of the candidates at serial Nos. 21 to 33 were deleted, the Petitioner could not get appointment. The order by which the names of the remaining candidates were deleted is Annexure-CA1 to the counter-affidavit. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that it is settled law that no candidate in the select list has any vested right to get appointment what to say about the candidate in the waiting list. The District Judge has deleted the names of the candidates from serial Nos. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that it is settled law that no candidate in the select list has any vested right to get appointment what to say about the candidate in the waiting list. The District Judge has deleted the names of the candidates from serial Nos. 21 to 33 after exercising his power under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955, after finding it that the list was dis-proportionate to the vacancies advertised for appointment. 4. It appears from the counter-affidavit and the order deleting the name of the candidates that no candidate after the name of the Petitioner has been given appointment. Therefore, there is no question of quashing the appointment of any candidate whose names appear after serial No. 29 in the select list. Moreover, the Petitioner has not impleaded any such candidate who was below in the merit, in the select list and was given appointment. 5. Since, the Petitioner has no vested right to get appointment out of the list prepared in the year 1987 and which has already been scraped by the District Judge, Faizabad, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad, at once.