V. K. SHUKLA, J. Petitioners have approached this Court questioning the validity of the promotion dated 18-5-2006 accorded by the District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) promoting respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as Class III employee. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioners are Class IV employee of District Judgeship, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi ). Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in Class IV cadre in the Judgeship on 19-2-1999 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as such on 24-5- 2000. Since the date of their initial appointments, petitioners are discharging their duties as Class IV employee. In the month of April, 2003, applications were invited by the District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar from Class IV employees for consideration of their claim for promotion to Class III cadre. Written examination was to be held on 27-4-2003 which was re- scheduled and was held on 30-4-2003. Petitioners candidature was rejected on the ground that they were not eligible for promotion as Class III cadre due to lack of completion of five years service. On 30-4- 2003 select list of 39 candidates was prepared from promotion quota. On 5-5- 2003 select list so prepared, candidates who are placed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted immediately. On 24-12-2003 advertisement was issued for filling up three posts of Stenographer and 15 posts of clerk by way of direct recruitment. Said selection process was challenged by three sets of Class IV employee on the ground that improper excess quota for direct recruitment has been released. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 of select list dated 30-4-2003 filed two separate Writ Petitions Bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2004, Bineet Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Anr. and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16410 of 2004, Bachchraj & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Anr. Another set of 12 Class IV employee filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38803 of 2004, Anil Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Anr. , challenging select list of six persons. Said writ petitions were finally decided by this Court on 21- 10-2005 and therein categorical finding has been arrived at that there are 96 posts in clerical cadre and total number of vacancies available for promotion was 19 posts. v. State of U. P. & Anr. , challenging select list of six persons. Said writ petitions were finally decided by this Court on 21- 10-2005 and therein categorical finding has been arrived at that there are 96 posts in clerical cadre and total number of vacancies available for promotion was 19 posts. Out of these 19 posts, 9 persons had already been promoted in 1997 and total number of vacancies for promotees came to 10 in 1999 and these posts continued upto the year 2003, then ten vacancies are available for promotion quota and from select list of 39 persons, promotion was to be accorded. Said writ petition was disposed with direction to the District Judge, Bhadohi to pass appropriate order for promotion in accordance with law and promote Class IV employees to Class III posts in accordance with the select list dated 30-4-2003. In the year 2005-2006 on 18-5-2006 Pradeep Kumar Singh and Virendra Kumar have been promoted against the substantive vacancy according to select list dated 30-4-2003 and Jai Shanker, Prem Kumar Tripathi, Mahendra Kumar Pandey and Om Babadur were promoted on leave vacancy. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed contending therein that after 10 incumbents starting from serial Nos. 1 to 10 of select list dated 30-4-2003 had been accorded promotion, further promotion out of the said list could not have been accorded, as said select list stood exhausted after ten incumbents had been promoted, as such selection accorded on 18-5-2006 is liable to be quashed, and post which had occurred subsequent to 30-4-2003 qua the same fresh computation be made and fresh selection proceeding be undertaken, for promotion, failing which right of consideration of candidature of petitioners for being promoted is being infringed. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, it has been contended that this Court in its order dated 21-10-2005 was pleased to issue order to the District Judge, Bhadohi to proceed for affording promotion from the select list of 39 candidates published on 30-4-2003 as per quota. It has been contended that candidates upto serial No. 10 were given promotion and the remaining candidates of the select list remained untouched as there was no other vacancy at that time for promotion quota, some more candidates of the select list would have been provided promotions in compliance of order dated 21-10- 2005. It has been contended that candidates upto serial No. 10 were given promotion and the remaining candidates of the select list remained untouched as there was no other vacancy at that time for promotion quota, some more candidates of the select list would have been provided promotions in compliance of order dated 21-10- 2005. It has been contended that two posts of Class IV promotional quota became vacant due to the transfer of one Lal Chand Yadav on 10-11-2003 working in Class III cadre and other due to retirement of Sri Kunwar Sahab Srivastava in November, 2005. As the select list of 39 candidates is still alive, two candidates were given promotion according to the select list. It has been contended that said select list still subsisted till new select list was prepared or it was cancelled or same exhausted its tenure. It has been contended that two promotees Pradeep Kumar Singh and Virendra Kumar occupy their places at serial Nos. 11 and 12 of the aforesaid select list and other incumbent were promoted on account of four employees proceeded on long leave, but subsequently, said promotion have been cancelled. In this background, it has been contended that promotions have been validly made. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of facts mentioned in the counter-affidavit have been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated. 5. In the present case notices were issued to private respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Office report dated 19-10- 2006 shows that notices have been sent by registered post, neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back. In view of this, service on private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 is presumed to be sufficient. However Sri Pankaj Srivastava appeared and stated that he has instructions on behalf of said respondents. 6. 3 to 8. Office report dated 19-10- 2006 shows that notices have been sent by registered post, neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back. In view of this, service on private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 is presumed to be sufficient. However Sri Pankaj Srivastava appeared and stated that he has instructions on behalf of said respondents. 6. Sri S. P. Pandey, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case vacancy, which subsequently occurred in future after select list had prepared, had exhausted itself, then same could not have been utilized by according promotion to Pradeep Kumar Singh and Virendra Kumar, as has been sought to be done in the present case, as such action of District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) is perverse, arbitrary and illegal and same also violative of fundamental right of petitioners for being considered for promotion, as on 18-5-2006 petitioners also fulfilled requisite eligibility criteria for being promoted, as such promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is liable to be quashed and writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Sri Rajeev Gupta and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate on the other hand contended that select list was there, and as vacancies had occurred subsequent to preparation of select list and life span of the select list subsisted, as such promotion, which has been accorded is justifiable promotion and in no eventuality it warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Before proceeding to consider the validity of appointments made against unnotified vacancy/unadvertised vacancy, judicial pronouncements of Honble Apex Court and this Court are being looked into. 9. Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Madan Mohan Singh, AIR 1994 SC 765 , took the view that when advertisement contained number of vacancies as 32, then any vacancy which had occurred subsequent to the same cannot be included, as the said process of selection was confined to 32 vacancies only and the same exhausted and came to an end, the moment appointments had been made, and if the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purposes of filling other vacancies also that would amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. Paragraph 7 of the judgment being relevant is being quoted below: " (7) Having carefully considered the advertisement and the various averments in the affidavits and the counter-affidavits, we are of the view that the crucial question is whether in fact the advertisement and the initial decision of the High Court were meant to fill up only 32 vacancies and whether accordingly the High Court called for only 129 candidates from the list, who appeared for the written test in the ratio of 1 : 4 and whether consequently the whole selection process was confined to fill up only those, 32 vacancies? If the answer is in the affirmative then the question of the same list subsisting for one more year for filling up the subsequent vacancies did not arise in spite of the resolution of the High Court dated 24-11-1990. As noted above in the reply affidavit, the Registrar of the High Court categorically stated that 32 vacancies were available and to fill up the same, 129 candidates were called for interview namely four times of the number of vacancies and that the rest of the vacancies arose later on. To satisfy ourselves, we have also called for the relevant records from the High Court and the same is placed before us in a sealed cover. A perusal of the records shows that in the Full Court meeting on 5-5- 1990 it was resolved that on the basis of the result of the preliminary screening test, four times of number of candidates to be selected for appointment be called for interview. From the proceedings of another Full Court meeting held on 15-9-1990 it is clear that it was resolved that 128 candidates alone in order of merit should be called for interview. The proceedings of the Full Court meeting dated 24-11- 1990 would show that the Full Court finalised the selection for filling up 32 vacancies only and sent a list of 32 candidates in order of merit. However, a further resolution was passed that if any further vacancy in the quota of the direct recruits was required to be filled up within a period of one year the same be filled up by recommending the candidates in order of merit from amongst the remaining candidates in the merit list. However, a further resolution was passed that if any further vacancy in the quota of the direct recruits was required to be filled up within a period of one year the same be filled up by recommending the candidates in order of merit from amongst the remaining candidates in the merit list. It is therefore crystal clear that the advertisement and the whole selection process that ensued were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies. Learned Counsel for the respondents relying on the decisions of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1989 Suppl (2) SCC 696 : AIR 1990 SC 454 and O. P. Garg v. State of U. P. , AIR 1991 SC 1202 , contended that when there are temporary vacancies, the direct recruits should have their share of quota in respect of temporary vacancies also. As noted above, the temporary vacancies arose subsequently but even otherwise in the view we are taking namely that the particular advertisement and the consequent selection process were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and not to fill up the other vacancies, the merit list prepared on the basis of the written test as well as the viva voce will hold good only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies and no further because the said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have became eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. " 10. Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1996 (2) LBESR 694 (SC) : (1996) 4 SCC 319 , has taken the view that selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies, and if requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointment than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment being relevant are being quoted below: " (25) From the above discussion of the case law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies, and if requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointment than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the Court may not, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of the persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (26) In the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts the Board made appointments on 138 posts. The selection process was started for 62 clear vacancies and at that time of anticipated vacancies were not taken into account. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement published on 2-11-1991 and the selection process which followed thereafter. But as the Board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also the vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the appointments made on the posts in excess of 62. However, the appointments which were made against future vacancies - in this case on posts which newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection process had started 13 posts had become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. However, the appointments which were made against future vacancies - in this case on posts which newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection process had started 13 posts had become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. The vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of retirement could have been reasonably considered by the Board. The Board through oversight had not taken into consideration while requisition was being made for filling 62 posts. Even with respect to the appointments made against vacancies which arose because of deaths, a lenient view can be taken and on consideration of expediency and equity they need not be quashed. Therefore, in view of the special facts and circumstances of this case we do not think it proper to invalidate the appointments made on those 25 additional posts. But the appointments made by the Board on posts beyond 87 posts are held invalid. Though the High Court was right in the view it has taken, we modify its order to the aforesaid extent. These appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. " 11. Honble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 18 , took the view that only in exceptional and emergent situation deviation can be made from the principle of limiting the number of appointments so advertised. Appointments beyond the number of advertised vacancies were held to be unsustainable. Said judgment was delivered after considering the judgment in case of Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, (1996) 4 SCC 319 . Relevant paragraphs 13 to 16 of the said judgment are being quoted below: " (13) The factual position in this case, as disclosed by the record, is that on 15-10-1990 the Board decided to fill up 62 vacant posts of Junior Engineers by direct recruitment. In 2-11- 1990 the Board advertised those 62 vacant posts and invited applications by 4-12-1990. In the notification of vacancies required to be issued under the Employment Exchange Act and the Rules also the vacancies notified were 62. After the posts were advertised and published but before appointments could be made 13 more posts became vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. Meanwhile, the Board also created 60 new posts of Junior Engineers. In the notification of vacancies required to be issued under the Employment Exchange Act and the Rules also the vacancies notified were 62. After the posts were advertised and published but before appointments could be made 13 more posts became vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. Meanwhile, the Board also created 60 new posts of Junior Engineers. The stand taken by the respondent-Board before the High Court was that by April 1993, 85 more posts had become vacant. Even when 62 posts were advertised there was a backlog of 62 posts of Junior Engineers and that was through oversight not taken into consideration. Out of the said backlog of 62 posts 36 posts were of direct recruitment quota and this had come to the notice of the Board in December, 1991 there was a backlog of 24 posts belonging to reserved category. It was for these reasons that on 2-4-1993 the Secretary of the Board had written to the Chief Engineer who was the appointing authority that as the list of 212 candidates selected by the Selection Committee was received and as 147 posts were vacant as on 11-2-1993 he should fill up all those vacant posts as directed therein. Out of the said list the Board was able to appoint 138 candidates. (14) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the selection process which had started on 2-11-1991 was completed in April, 1993 when the Selection Committee forwarded the list of selected candidates to the Secretary of the Board. In view of this long space of time and large number of posts remaining vacant it was permissible to the board to make appointments in excess of the number of posts advertised. If the Board had not filled up these posts the its work would have suffered adversely. It was submitted that bearing in mind these realities the High Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach and refrained from quashing the selection and appointments made by the Board. In support of these contentions the learned Counsel relied upon one decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. (15) In Subhash Chander Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1984) 1 SLR 165, the facts were that against 50 advertised posts the Public Service Commission had recommended almost double the number and more than 60 candidates were appointed on the basis of that selection. (15) In Subhash Chander Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1984) 1 SLR 165, the facts were that against 50 advertised posts the Public Service Commission had recommended almost double the number and more than 60 candidates were appointed on the basis of that selection. Relying upon the earlier decision of the same High Court in Sachida Nand Sharma v. Subordinate Services Selection Board, CPW No. 285 of 1983, decided on 1-6- 1983 it was contended that all appointments beyond 60 should be invalidated. The High Court distinguished its earlier decision in Sachida Nand Sharma case and held that if the State adopted a pragmatic approach by taking into consideration the existing vacancies in relation to the process of selection which some times takes a couple of years and make appointments in excess of the posts advertised then such an action cannot be regarded as unconstitutional. (16) In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 , what had happened was that Haryana Public Service Commission had invited applications for recruitment of 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service and other allied services. The number of vacancies arose during the time taken up in the written examination and the viva voce test and thus in all 119 posts became available for being filled. The Haryana Public Service Commission, therefore, selected and recommended 119 candidates to the Government. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of selections on various grounds. The High Court set aside the selection as it was of the view that the selection process was vitiated for more than one reason. On appeal, this Court also found substance in the contention that the Haryana Public Service Commission was not justified in calling for interview candidates representing more than 20 times the number of available vacancies and that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test was unduly excessive. Yet this Court did not think it just and proper to set aside the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission as by that time two years had passed and the candidates selected were already appointed to various posts and were working on those posts since about two years. " 12. Honble Apex Court in the case of Benny T. D. & Ors. v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Anr. " 12. Honble Apex Court in the case of Benny T. D. & Ors. v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Anr. , (1998) 5 SCC 269 , has taken the view that it is well known that during the time when an advertisement is issued and by the time when process of selection starts and ultimately appointment orders are issued, on account of several factors the number of posts may increase. In such contingencies when appointments are made depending upon the vacancies available and in excess of vacancies advertised, it cannot be said that appointment has been made in excess of the strength of the cadre approved. Relevant extract of the judgment is being quoted below: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is well known that during the time when an advertisement is issued and by the time when process of selection starts and ultimately appointment orders are issued, on account of several factors the number of posts may be increased, the factors being retirement of persons on attaining superannuation, death of several employees, promotion of the employees to higher posts and for variety of other grounds. In such contingencies when appointments are made depending upon the vacancies available and in excess of vacancies advertised, it cannot be said that appointment has been made in excess of the strength of the cadre approved. There is neither any allegation nor any material to sustain the finding of the Registrar that in fact appointment has been made in excess of the posts approved by the Registrar. The said conclusion, therefore, must be held to be a conclusion based on no evidence and accordingly cannot be sustained. " 13. Honble Apex Court in the case of State of J. & K. v. Sanjeev Kumar, 2005 (4) SCC 148 , has taken note of principle laid down in paragraphs 25 and 26 of Prem Singhs case qua existing vacancies, notified vacancies and future vacancies and in paragraph 8 has mentioned as follows: " (8) As is clearly spelt from the quoted portion, the Government can by a policy decision appoint people from the waiting list. It has been laid down that on the facts of Prem Singh case, (1996) 4 SCC 319 , while issuing advertisement the Government could have taken into account likely vacancies. It has been laid down that on the facts of Prem Singh case, (1996) 4 SCC 319 , while issuing advertisement the Government could have taken into account likely vacancies. The principle in Prem Singh was followed in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696 . " 14. Qua Ministerial Staff, Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Judge, Baghpat v. Anurag Kumar, 2005 (3) LBESR 52 (All) : (2005) 2 ESC 1509 , has considered Rules 9, 10, 11 and 14 of 1947 Rules in following manner: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 9 empowers the District Judges to recruit as many candidates as are required for the vacancies `likely to occur in the course of the year. The exercise has to be commenced early in each year or as the circumstances may require. This entails an exercise by the District Judges of identifying the number of vacancies existing or likely to occur in the course of the year. This is in conformity with the Rule 4 of the 1945 Rules, referred to hereinabove, which requires that such vacancies shall be calculated and necessary steps shall be taken to make this fact generally known. What follows is that the advertisement to be made has to be preceded by an exercise by calculating the number of vacancies in the manner indicated hereinabove. Then comes Rule 10 of the 1947 Rules which provides for an advertisement inviting applications in a particular form which should particularly disclose the number of candidates to be recruited. The advertisement, therefore, will be presumed to have included only such number of vacancies/posts which are available in accordance with the calculation made under Rule 9 and no other future vacancy. The Rule does not contemplate advertisement of future vacancies which can be taken into account after the advertisement has been made. The recruitment thereafter is to be made on the basis of the result of the examination under Rule 11 and for the said purposes, the list of selected candidates has to be entered in a register in order of merit to be maintained by the District Judges under Rule 14. The recruitment thereafter is to be made on the basis of the result of the examination under Rule 11 and for the said purposes, the list of selected candidates has to be entered in a register in order of merit to be maintained by the District Judges under Rule 14. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, in no uncertain terms, provides that in case a candidate who has not been offered appointment in accordance with the said list within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall automatically be removed from the register. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would establish that the number of vacancies which have to be advertised are to be in accordance with the Rule 9 and, therefore, the recital in the advertisement that the vacancies are likely to increase or decrease has to be strictly construed in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. What logically follows is that the District Judge is not at liberty to prepare a list dehors the number of vacancies advertised. This position stands further clarified by the Circular Letter No. 9/viib-104 Admin. dated 29-4-1999 issued by the High Court which clearly states that the select list shall not be prepared by the District Judges for more than the double of the vacancies advertised. " 15. Qua Class IV employees, taking in view the provisions of U. P. Subordinate Court Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955, this Court in the case of Narpat Singh v. Registrar, 2005 (5) AWC 4219, noticing therein the directives issued by this Court in the case of Ram Babu (supra) observed and held as follows; relevant paragraphs 6 to 16 are being quoted below: " (6) Rule 12 of the Rules reads as under: "12. Waiting List.- (i) A waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the post of Process servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farras. No waiting list shall be maintained for Chaukidars, Malis, sweepers and waterman. Waiting List.- (i) A waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the post of Process servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farras. No waiting list shall be maintained for Chaukidars, Malis, sweepers and waterman. (ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of: 0 (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 dishonest in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunities to explain their conduct. (7) The aforesaid rule contemplates that the posts of Process servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farras have to be filled up by the appointment of the candidates, whose names are found in the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules. This rule further contemplates that the waiting list should be of "reasonable dimensions" and be revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maximum age prescribed in Rule 8 of the rules, and for removing the names of such candidates who are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonest in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies. (8) In Ram Babu & Anr. v. District Judge Banda, 1996 AWC 516, this Court held that the waiting list must be prepared under Rule 12 of the rules before the concurrence of the vacancy and has to be utilised mainly for the purpose of filling in the substantive vacancy for the posts of Process servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farras. This Court in the aforesaid judgment further held that the list could be utilised for making temporary or officiating appointments. (9) The expression "reasonable dimensions" as indicated above was explained in Ram Babu case (supra ). This Court held: " (24) The use of expression "reasonable dimensions" indicated above is of great significance. This Court in the aforesaid judgment further held that the list could be utilised for making temporary or officiating appointments. (9) The expression "reasonable dimensions" as indicated above was explained in Ram Babu case (supra ). This Court held: " (24) The use of expression "reasonable dimensions" indicated above is of great significance. It seems to me that the expression "reasonable dimensions" as used in Rule 12 of the Rules signifies that the waiting list should be a moderate one containing that number of candidates which is not less than or much in excess of the vacancies which might be available in the year of recruitment or the years succeeding thereto and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies. To be more precise this waiting list should not be immoderate or excessive and must be co-related to the number of vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or likely to become available in the succeeding year and the proportion qua the existing and anticipated vacancies which must be clearly should be in the proportion of 1:3 which proportion has to be accepted as a reasonable proportion. It may be emphasized that it is only in order to obviate the possibility of the waiting list becoming vitiated 1 on account of the vice of arbitrariness or illegal discrimination that the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the rules specifically provide for maintaining waiting list of a reasonable dimension. The word "dimension" has to be understood to emphasise the proportion qua the vacancies which are sought to be filled up". (10) In Ram Babu case (supra), it was also held that a waiting list of candidates contemplated under Rule 12 of the rules could not be deemed to subsist for a period beyond the filling up of the notified vacancies and that the waiting list could be subsist or remain operative for an indefinite period nor could the list be utilised for filling up the vacancies which had not been notified before the preparation of such a list. This Court held that the waiting list would get exhausted the moment the notified vacancies are filled up by the candidates. This Court held that the waiting list would get exhausted the moment the notified vacancies are filled up by the candidates. This Court further held: "i am of the considered opinion that the waiting list contemplated under Rule 12 of the rules has to be of a reasonable proportion qua the number of vacancies actually notified and it will not be reasonable to hold that the vacancies which are notified may be of any year beyond the year succeeding to the year of recruitment. " (11) In view of the aforesaid, the Court in Ram Babus case (supra) issued the following guidelines, namely: " (50) Accordingly, let a direction issue requiring the District Judge referred to herein above to ensure that: (a) all the available substantive vacancies in the posts covered by Rule 12 of the Rules or such vacancies which are likely to become available in the year of recruitment and the year succeeding it be notified inviting applications before the preparation of the waiting list contemplated therein. (b) the waiting list indicated above shall consist of the names of the candidates in the proportion of 1:3 qua the notified number of vacancies. 2 (c) the waiting list shall cease to be operative and stand exhausted on the filling up of the last notified vacancy. (d) the fresh waiting list shall invariably be prepared before the accrual of the vacancies so that there may not be any unnecessary delay in its being filled up. (e) all the existing waiting lists prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules which have served their purpose as indicated herein above shall cease to be operative forthwith. The appointments already made shall, however, remain undisturbed. " (12) In Muqeem Ahmad & Ors. v. District Judge, Sultanpur, 1999 (1) LBESR 377 (All) : 1999 (1) AWC 748 , it was held that the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules stood exhausted the moment the last notified vacancy was filled up from the list and that it was not permissible to appoint all the candidates whose names have been incorporated in the waiting list over and above the vacancy notified. (13) In the present case admittedly five vacancies were notified and a list of 35 candidates was prepared. Candidates from serial Nos. 1 to 5 were filled up and, therefore, the notified vacancies came to an end. Accordingly, the waiting list stood exhausted. (13) In the present case admittedly five vacancies were notified and a list of 35 candidates was prepared. Candidates from serial Nos. 1 to 5 were filled up and, therefore, the notified vacancies came to an end. Accordingly, the waiting list stood exhausted. Further I hold that the waiting list of 35 candidates was unreasonable and did not come within the parameters of "reasonable dimensions" as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules, and therefore, this list was required to be scrapped. In any case the notified vacancies got exhausted and consequently the waiting list came to an end and could be utilised any further. (14) Thus, the waiting list of 35 candidates was not a correct list and stood exhausted upon the filling up of the notified vacancies. The contention of the learned Counsel that the list continues to remain operative and only gets exhausted when all the candidates are given appointment is wholly erroneous. The list gets exhausted the moment notified vacancies are filled up by the selected candidates. (15) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Judge had no power to seek instructions from the High Court, nor had any power to make a request to the High Court under the rules. The learned Counsel further submitted that the High Court had no power under the Rules to issue directions to the District Judge for cancellation of the waiting list. 3 (16) The submission of the learned Counsel is devoid of any merit. Rule 12 indicates that the list should be revised from time to time. Therefore, the District Judge had the power to revise the waiting list. The revision of the list could be with or without material changes or could substitute or displace the original with a new one. Therefore, the District Judge has power to cancel the list under Rule 12 of the Rules while revising the list. The District Judge also has the power to seek instructions from the High Court and High Court has power to issue instructions to the District Judge on its administrative side. " 16. On the touchstone of the dictum noted above, claim of petitioners is being adverted to. This Court on 21-10-2005 had made categorical mentions that qua 96 posts in clerical cadre, out of these post, 19 vacancies are to be filled up by way of promotion. " 16. On the touchstone of the dictum noted above, claim of petitioners is being adverted to. This Court on 21-10-2005 had made categorical mentions that qua 96 posts in clerical cadre, out of these post, 19 vacancies are to be filled up by way of promotion. Out of 19 posts, 9 persons had already been promoted in 1997 and total number of vacancies available in the year 1999 for promotion was 10. These ten vacancies, which was available for promotion remain vacant till select list of 39 persons was prepared. This Court had given categorical direction to District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar to pass appropriate order for promotion in accordance with law and promote Class IV employee to Class III according to select list dated 30-4-2003. In pursuance of the select list dated 30-4-2003, total ten incumbents were entitled to be promoted and in fact ten incumbents have been promoted. Problem has arisen on 18-5-2006 when select list dated 30-4-2003 has been treated as perennial source of promotion, and from the said select list, Pradeep Kumar Singh and Virendra Kumar have been sought to be promoted qua vacancies, which had occurred on account of transfer of Lal Chand Yadav on 10-11- 2003 and after attaining the age of superannuation of Kunwar Shahab Srivastava in November, 2005. The examination, which was held for according promotion, was not at all in reference of vacancies, qua which promotion had been accorded. At the said point of time, vacancies in question were determined and computed as ten in number. From the select list prepared, appointment by way of promotion could be made only against ten promotional posts computed and in case any one out of these ten incumbents would have refused for promotion, then persons, who were placed in the wait list could have been accorded promotion. After ten incumbents have been accorded promotion out of said select list, then the said select list had clearly outlived its utility and same could not have been utilised as has been sought to be done in the present case. Vacancy in question against which respondents No. 3 and 4 have been accorded promotion has arisen after select list dated 30-4- 2003 had already been prepared, and said promotional exercise was in reference of ten vacancies meant for promotion and not for future vacancy. Vacancy in question against which respondents No. 3 and 4 have been accorded promotion has arisen after select list dated 30-4- 2003 had already been prepared, and said promotional exercise was in reference of ten vacancies meant for promotion and not for future vacancy. In the present case, District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar has clearly transgressed and over stepped his jurisdiction by using the said list as perennial source of according promotion and has accorded promotion in the manner, which is not at all subscribed by law. Once in future vacancy had occurred after 30- 4-2003, and said vacancy in case it fell under promotion quota, then de novo as per rules, fresh exercise was to be undertaken by inviting application and undertaking process of selection for promotion, but on the basis of old examination, future vacancies could not have been filled up as has been sought to be done in the present case. Legal rights of petitioners for being considered for promotion, in the present case has been infringed, as in the past when applications had been invited petitioners were eligible, but here on 18-5-2006 when promotion has been accorded, petitioners fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and in the event of promotional exercise being undertaken denovo, then petitioners would also have availed the opportunity to apply for consideration of their claim for promotion. 17. Consequently, in the present selection made by way of promotion on 18-5-2006 of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is hereby quashed and set aside. District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) is directed to see that fresh process of selection by way of promotion is undertaken, preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 18. With these observations, writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed. .