JUDGMENT Honble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants. Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Counsel appears for the respondents. 2. The appeal involves a short determination of facts. The case of the respondents in this appeal before the learned Single Judge was that they were selected as Seenchpal in the year 1996 and some persons had been selected in an earlier list in 1987. The persons from the 1987 list had been appointed as also two more persons from the 1996 list and, therefore, they ought to be appointed. 3. The learned Judge has accepted this submission of the respondents and granted a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to give appointment to these persons. 4. Dr. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit which was filed before the learned Single Judge with a clear assertion that none of the persons selected in the list of 1987 or in the second list of 1996 had been given appointment. A list had also been annexed and the second list is the same as the list given by the respondents herein. 5. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was in error on facts in holding that there appears to be no dispute that all the candidates of the list of the 1987 and two candidates of the second list were given appointment. 6. Mr. G.K. Singh submits that under Rule 14, a waiting list is prepared and under Rule 15 appointment is to be made. These Rules are the Rules of the Irrigation Department and are known as the Irrigation Department Patrols, Service Rules, 1953. Now as can be seen. Rule 14 talks about a wait list or Pratiksha Suchi. Rule 15 merely talks about employment being offered as far as possible from the wait list. We cannot also ignore that the age of a person to be employed is between 18 and 28 as per Rule 8. More than 23 years have gone since the selection was made in the year 1987. Obviously no employment can be offered to any such person even if appointment is to be made from this wait list. 7. In the circumstances, we have no option but to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Obviously no employment can be offered to any such person even if appointment is to be made from this wait list. 7. In the circumstances, we have no option but to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ————