Tarun Agarwala, J.;— An advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up four posts of Telephone Operators in the High Court at Allahabad and at Lucknow. The petitioner applied for the same as a general candidate. On 28.8.2008, the results were declared in which Sri Dinesh Chandra Tripathi, Sri Surya Prakash Singh, Sri Sunil Kumar and Sri Hari Krishna were selected. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the selection of Sri Surya Prakash Singh (Sri SP Singh for short) filed WP No. 48549 of 2008; which was dismissed by a judgment dated 16.9.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a special appeal which was allowed by a judgement dated 29.1.2011. The Division Bench held that Sri SP Singh did not possess the requisite experience for the post of Telephone Operator in a government or semi government organisation. Consequently, his appointment was set aside. The Division Bench directed the High Court to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates. It is alleged that the order of the Division Bench was not complied with and accordingly a contempt application was filed. During its pendency, the High Court appointed Sri Jafar Fareed as a Telephone Operator. The contempt application was accordingly dismissed. The record reveals that pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench, a Committee was constituted under the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, and it directed the Registry by its report dated 19.5.2011 to prepare a fresh merit list of the general candidates. Based on the aforesaid direction, the Registry in its report dated 21.5.2011 prepared a fresh list of eligible candidates of general candidates in which Sri Jafar Fareed (Respondent no. 2) was shown eligible having scored 59 marks and the petitioner was also shown eligible having scored 56 marks. The Committee of two Hon'ble Judges considered the said report and in its minutes dated 23.5.2011, recommended the name of respondent no. 2 for appointment on the post of Telephone Operator. Based on the said recommendation, respondent no. 2 was given appointment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no. 2, has filed the present writ petition. The court has heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, Sri Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for the High Court, Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan for respondent no. 2 and Sri Rohit Agarwal for respondent no. 3. 2 was given appointment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no. 2, has filed the present writ petition. The court has heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, Sri Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for the High Court, Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan for respondent no. 2 and Sri Rohit Agarwal for respondent no. 3. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that argument were only raised with regard to the appointment of respondent no. 2 and no argument were raised with regard to appointment of Sri Hari Kishan. The petitioner has raised two grounds, namely- (i)that the candidature of respondent no. 2 was rejected earlier by the Committee by its minutes dated 08.08.2008 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience certificate as provided under Rule 9(c) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1976). It was contended that once the candidature of respondent no. 2 was rejected earlier by the Committee, he could not be held to be eligible again and be given an appointment and, (ii)that the experience certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 was found to be forged or fabricated and, therefore, on this ground, his appointment was liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner indicating that pursuant to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, the ITI Ltd authorities responded that in absence of an employment number of respondent no. 2, the requisite information could not be supplied and, on this basis, it was contended by the petitioner that the certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 showing that he had gained experience from the ITI Ltd was a forged or a fabricated document. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by the High Court also brings on record that upon verification of the document, the ITI Ltd authorities submitted that in the absence of the staff number, the verification of the certificate could not be authenticated and that as per available record, the certificate had not been issued from the organisation. On this basis, it was contended that the certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 was a forged or a fabricated document. On this basis, it was contended that the certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 was a forged or a fabricated document. The High Court in its supplementary counter affidavit also brought to the knowledge of the court that during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no. 2 applied for being relieved from the post of Telephone Operator. His request was duly considered and, the High Court, by its order dated 29.5.2012, relieved him from the post of Telephone Operator and allowed him to join his parent department, namely, District Court, Allahabad. On this basis, it was urged that the relief claimed by the petitioner has now become infructuous and that the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the court finds that the writ petition has not become infructuous, The mere fact that respondent no. 2 has been relieved or the fact that the post has become vacant does not make the writ petition infructuous. The petitioner has not only challanged the appointment of respondent no. 2 but has also prayed that the merit list should again be prepared and the post, which is being occupied by respondent no. 2, should be filled up by the suitable selected candidate. The court further finds that the lis between the petitioner, the High Court and respondent no. 2 still survives and, in the event, the court finds that the appointment of respondent no. 2 was invalid, it could issue necessary direction for fresh preparation of the merit list. In so far as the first ground raised by the petitioner is concerned, the court finds that undoubtedly the committee in its minutes dated 08.08.2008 rejected the candidature of respondent no. 2 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience of working as a Telephone Operator in a government or a semi government organisation. On this basis, the petitioner stressed that once the candidature of respondent no. 2 was rejected there was no occasion for the committee to consider his case and make him eligible and thereafter recommend his name for appointment. The submission of the petitioner appears to be attractive, but after going through the record and after considering the submissions of the counsels for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the submission of the petitioner can not be accepted. The submission of the petitioner appears to be attractive, but after going through the record and after considering the submissions of the counsels for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the submission of the petitioner can not be accepted. Admittedly, for the purpose of being eligible under Rule 9(c) of the Rules of 1976, respondent no. 2 had submitted two certificates namely (i) One month training from PARIMANDLIYA Telecommunication training centre, Lucknow and (ii) One year experience certificate from ITI Ltd. In spite of these certificates being filed showing his experience of working as Telephone Operator, the candidature of respondent no. 2 was rejected and Sri SP Singh was initially appointed. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction given by the Division Bench in its judgement dated 20.1.2011 and directions given by the Committee on 19.5.2011, the Registry while preparing a list of eligible candidates found that Respondent no. 2 had submitted the experience certificate and accordingly corrected its mistake and showed him eligible which fact was duly considered by the Committee. The Committee found that Zafar Fareed had submitted two certificates and that he had scored more marks than the petitioner. The Committee, accordingly recommended his name for appointment on the post of Telephone Operator. The Court is of the opinion, that the principle of estoppel does not arise in the present facts and circumstances of the case. If a mistake had been committed while preparing the merit list, the mistake can be rectified subsequently in pursuance of the direction given by the Court. In the instant case, the Division Bench of this Court issued a direction for preparation of a fresh merit list on the basis of which a fresh merit list of eligible candidates were prepared. The defect was removed and the name of respondent no. 2 was included in the list. The court is of the opinion that a genuine error made earlier can be rectified and the same can not become a ground to debar respondent no. 2 for being considered as eligible candidate. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to refer to the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. Rule 9(i) provides academic qualifications for direct recruitment for the post of Telephone Operator. For facility, the said provision is extracted below. 2 for being considered as eligible candidate. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to refer to the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. Rule 9(i) provides academic qualifications for direct recruitment for the post of Telephone Operator. For facility, the said provision is extracted below. Rule 9: Qualification: Academic qualifications for direct recruitment to the various class III posts in the establishment shall be as follows. "(i).......... (i)(a) Telephone Operators and Telex Operators: Must have passed the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education,UP or and examination declared by the Governor as equivalent thereto. Provided that the minimum academic qualifications in respect of the candidates recruited before the enforcement of these rules shall be High School Certificate. .......... Provided that in addition to the above qualifications candidates for following categories of posts must also possess the qualification mentioned below. .......... (c)Telephone Operators: Must possess sufficient experience of working as a Telephone Operator in some Government or Semi-Governments undertaking. .......... Provided further that in all direct recruitments in Class III knowledge of Data Entry, word processing and Computer Operation would be essential qualification while for all promotional posts of class III its knowledge would be a preferential qualification". With regard to the second contention, the court finds that respondent no. 2 had submitted two certificates. The first certificate is with regard to training as a Telephone Operator in BSNL and this certificate has been found to be genuine but with regard to the second certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 issued from ITI Ltd, requisite information could not be given in absence of the employment number. Similarly, the information given to the High Court by the ITI Ltd authorities, is more or less the same, namely that in the absence of the staff number, the verification could not be authenticated. The authorities further submitted that as per available record, the certificate in question had not been issued from the organisation. On this basis, a submission was made that the certificate filed by respondent no. 2 was a forged or a fabricated document and consequently the appointment of respondent no. 2 should be cancelled. The authorities further submitted that as per available record, the certificate in question had not been issued from the organisation. On this basis, a submission was made that the certificate filed by respondent no. 2 was a forged or a fabricated document and consequently the appointment of respondent no. 2 should be cancelled. Having heard the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that it is not relevant for the court to consider the genuineness of the certificate issued by the ITI Ltd authorities, in inasmuch as, the court finds that one of the certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 was found to be genuine in which it has been indicated that he underwent training as a Telephone Operator in the BSNL organisation for a period of one month. On the basis of this certificate substantial compliance of Rule 9(c) of the Rules of 1976 has been done. The experience certificate of ITI Ltd was an added feature and, even if it is found to be a forged or fabricated document, it will have no bearing with the ultimate decision of this court though it may have a bearing with the disciplinary proceedings which may be instituted against respondent no. 2. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that a valid recommendation was given by the Committee, on the basis of which, the appointment was given to respondent no. 2. However, respondent no. 2 was relieved from the post during pendency of the writ petition and now a fresh vacancy arises. The question, is whether the petitioner can be accommodated on this vacancy or not? The answer is 'No'. Once the appointment has been made validly, the select list comes to and end and cannot be utilised to fill up a vacancy which has arisen subsequently. This view of the court is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Raghubir Chand Sharma and another; (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 113 and a decision of Division Bench of this Court in District Judge Vs. Anurag Kumar and others; 2006 Vol. 5 AWC 4682. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. _____________