JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment as a Stenographer Grade-III in the District & Sessions courts, Delhi. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that he falls under the general category of which there were 45 vacancies, of which vacancies only 41 were filled, and therefore, petitioner being No. 2 in the waiting list, was bound to have been intimated by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi an offer to join the post of Stenographer Grade-III. 3. Learned counsel for both the parties relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maninder Kaur vs. Delhi High Court & Ors., 57(1995) DLT 288 which holds that once all the persons with respect to the notified vacancies join, thereafter a candidate whose name is in the waiting list has no right to join against any future vacancy which may arise, however in case if all the persons who are offered the posts do not join then those in the wait-list have to be offered the seats not filled in. In the present case, it is argued by the petitioner that since all the 45 vacancies were not filled, the petitioner should have been appointed inasmuch as the petitioner was at serial No. 2 in the waiting list. Actually though the factual position as urged by the petitioner is correct and on that count I can allow the writ petition and direct the appointment of the petitioner, however, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the reasons given hereafter. 4. The fact of the matter is that after the subject selection process of 2007 was concluded by joining of only 41 candidates out of 45 vacancies, however thereafter the life of the waiting list/panel came to an end because the un-filled vacancies were merged in the subsequent recruitment process which took place in the year 2008. The vacancies of Stenographers Grade-III, and a post to which petitioner is an aspirant, and which post remained vacant in the 2006-2007 recruitment process were advertised in 2008 recruitment process and filled in. In fact, subsequently, another recruitment process took place in the year 2010 when other set of vacancies of Stenographers Grade-III were again filled in. The vacancies of Stenographers Grade-III, and a post to which petitioner is an aspirant, and which post remained vacant in the 2006-2007 recruitment process were advertised in 2008 recruitment process and filled in. In fact, subsequently, another recruitment process took place in the year 2010 when other set of vacancies of Stenographers Grade-III were again filled in. Therefore, lot of water has flown under the bridge since the selection list including the waiting list was prepared on 15.5.2007 before this writ petition was filed in 2012. The right of the petitioner to get appointment with respect to vacancies advertised through recruitment process 2007 has now become irrelevant because these very vacant posts have been filled in as per the two subsequent recruitment processes. May be the petitioner has some genuine reasons i.e. of his illness or illness of his mother or his financial condition to file the writ petition in 2012, but I am reluctant to grant any relief under Article 226 at this stage because vested rights have come into existence in favour of the appointees of the 2008 and 2010 processes, and which position I would not like to disturb. 5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM 10160/2013 is accordingly disposed of.