JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It transpires that a recruitment process was initiated in the year 2000 and, based on the written examination, a select list as well as a waiting list was prepared. The appellant stood first in the waiting list in the backward category. It transpires that the selected candidates were appointed in the vacancy that was advertised. One Manju Rani, an employee of the Civil Court Haridwar proceeded on maternity leave w.e.f. 29th November, 2000 and, consequently, against the leave vacancy, the appellant was given an appointment on 29th November, 2000 for a limited period. The appellant joined his duties and his appointment automatically came to an end upon Manju Rani joining her duties after exhausting her maternity leave. 3. It is alleged that upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, six employees of the Civil Court, Haridwar were sent on deputation to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Out of six employees, one retired, as a result of which, a vacancy was created in the judgeship at Haridwar. On this vacancy, the appellant made a representation that he should be given appointment again placing his claim on the basis of being at serial no. 1 of the waiting list. This representation was rejected by the authority concerned, against which, the petitioner preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by a judgment dated 9th July, 2007 against which the present special appeal has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Rule 9, 14 and 15 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and submitted that he was liable to be considered for any vacancy which may come into existence in the near future and was liable to be considered on the said post since he was placed at S. No. 1 of the waiting list. In support of his submission, the appellant place reliance upon a decision in Satendra Prasad Sharma and others Vs. District Judge Ghazipur decided by the Allahabad High Court on 5th November, 1986, in which, it was held that a person of an approved list of candidate has got an officiating chance under rule 15 sub clause (2) of the Rules. 5. District Judge Ghazipur decided by the Allahabad High Court on 5th November, 1986, in which, it was held that a person of an approved list of candidate has got an officiating chance under rule 15 sub clause (2) of the Rules. 5. In our opinion, the said decision has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the first instance, the Court finds that the appellant was placed at S. No. 1 of the waiting list in the selection for the posts of Clerk on the vacancies advertisement in the year 2000. The said vacancies were filled from the select list. It is settled principle of law that when the vacancies are filled pursuant to the advertisement, the select list as well as the waiting list comes to an end and cannot be utilized any further to fill any other vacancy. Consequently, once the vacancies are filled and the selection process comes to an end, the appellant being at serial No. 1 of the waiting list could not take any advantage for any other vacancy. Consequently, the fact that the vacancy arose in December, 2001 on the retirement of an employee, such vacancy cannot be utilized to give any kind of officiating, temporary or permanent appointment to the appellant. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. The Court finds that an appointment was given to the petitioner on a temporary basis on a leave vacancy. Once an appointment is given, that list again gets exhausted and cannot be utilized over and over again for another vacancy that may occur in future. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the court does not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.