TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE District Judge, Mathura prepared a waiting list contemplated under Rule 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 for appointment of candidates on the post of Process -Servers and Farrash in Class IV establishment. This waiting list prepared on 2 -6 -1986 consisted of 35 candidates against 5 notified vacancies. Pursuant to the aforesaid list, candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed immediately thereafter in the 5 notified vacancies. Thereafter, as and when the vacancies arose, candidates from serial Nos. 6 to 12 were appointed from the same list between the period 1986 to 1988. On 4 -3 -1989, the District Judge wrote a letter to the Registrar of the High Court, Allahabad seeking permission to cancel the list of the remaining candidates and for preparation of a new list. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court vide its letter dated 15 -4 -1989 communicated the decision of the High Court to the District Judge, Mathura intimating him that the Court had cancelled the panel of the waiting list which was prepared in the year 1986 and further a direction was given to the District Judge to make a fresh panel of candidates in the ratio of 1:3 i.e. for one vacancy, a waiting list of three shall be made.
(2.) THE petitioners are those candidates, who were at serial Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the waiting list prepared in the year 1986 and are aggrieved by the decision of the Court cancelling the waiting list of 1986 and have filed this writ petition praying for the quashing of the communication sent by the Deputy Registrar to the District Judge, cancelling the list of 1986 and further praying for a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Mathura to appoint the petitioners in existing vacancies in Class IV cadre on the basis of the waiting list prepared in year 1986. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthalekar, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules could not be cancelled in this manner and that once a waiting list had been prepared it only comes to an end when the list gets exhausted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so long as the waiting list was not exhausted, a fresh list could not be prepared under Rule 12 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the process initiated by the District Judge for the cancellation of the list was wholly illegal and against the provisions of the Rules and submitted that the District Judge had no power to initiate such a process under the Rules and that even the High Court had no power to order the cancellation of the list on its administrative side. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the event, this Court holds that the cancellation of the waiting list was valid, in that case the District Judge ought to have utilized the list upto serial No. 15 of the waiting list and only, thereafter, the said list could have been scrapped. The learned counsel submitted that there were 5 vacancies, which were invited in the year 1986 and on the basis of 1:3 as directed by the Court, the number of candidates would come to 15 in number, therefore, the list would only be exhausted after utilizing the candidates up to serial No. 15.;