It is clear from the information furnished that the select list of the Appellants was dated 19.09.2000 whereas they were appointed by order dated 13.08.2001 i.e. within one year of the declaration of results. The order dated 19.09.2003 provides that only the appointments made after 19.09.2001 were ad hoc. As all the Appellants have been given appointment within one year of publication of select list, their services cannot be termed as ad hoc. Even if it is accepted that wait list is valid only for one year, since the Appellants were appointed well prior to the expiry of the one-year, the said objection cannot be countenanced.
Wait list gets exhausted only when all duly selected candidates are given appointments As long as the wait list was not exhausted, a fresh list could not be prepared under Rule 12 of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1995 and the process initiated by the Respondents for advertising fresh posts and canceling the wait list by making it as ad hoc is against the provisions of the Rules.
Rule 12 contemplates that the waiting list should be of "reasonable dimension" and be revised from time to time with a view to removing there from the names of such candidates who are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies. The wait list is neither a selection list prepared with reference to specific number of vacancies notified. It is somewhat peculiar and special. The expression "reasonable dimension" used in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules signifies that the wait list should be a moderate one containing that number of candidates which is adequate to meet the vacancies which might be available within a reasonable period in the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies.
