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 placed 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. In our opinion, the said decision has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 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 advertised 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 fist as well as the waiting list comes to an end and cannot be utilised 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 utilised 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.