Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before this Court that he has a very valid case in support of the contention of the petitioner on the issue particularly on the basis of Rule 4(m) read with third proviso to Rule 10 of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001. He also contended that his case is backed by the judgment reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 531, Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others. He further contended that when the State being recruitment authority sent requisition to the High Court, process of recruitment seems to be started and the candidates, who became eligible then but not called for interview due to delay in selection, can not be said to be debarred from participating in interview because of overage. There is no fault on the part of the candidates. In JT 2006 (4) SC 531 (supra) the Supreme Court categorically held “The rules postulate the timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for long