IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16383 of 2009 1. RINKU KUMAR SINGH S/O DEO NATH SINGH R/O VILL. & P.O. SINHA P.S. KRISHNAGARH DISTT.- BHOJPUR 2. PARSURAM SINGH S/O DAMODAR SINGH R/O VILL.- GHANGHAR, P.O. SINHA GHAT P.S. KRISHNAGARH DISTT.- BHOJPUR 3. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH S/O KRISHNA DEO SINGH R/O VILL. GHANGHAR P.O. SINHA GHAT P.S. KRISHNAGARH DISTT.- BHOJPUR 4. RAMESH KUMAR YADAV S/O SRI SANT LAL YADAV R/O VILL. & P.O. BENWALIYA P.S. BIHIYA DISTT.- BHOJPUR 5. GURU PRASAD S/O SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL. & P.O. NISAN NAGAR BADDI P.S. SHIV SAGAR DISTT.- ROHTASH 6. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI BADRI PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL. & P.O. NISAN NAGAR BADDI P.S. SHIV SAGAR DISTT.- ROHTASH 7. DHANANJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O LATE BIMAL TRIPATHI R/O VILL. & P.O. BISANPUR P.S. GOVINDPUR DISTT.- NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAWADA 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTASH AT SASARAM 10. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BETTIAH 11. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHEOHAR 12. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALANDA 13. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 14. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR 15. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DIHRI 16. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JEHANABAD 17. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR 18. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BAGAHA 19. THE COMMANDANT OF B.M.P.- 5 PATNA 20. THE COMMANDANAT OF B.M.P.- 13 AT DARBHANGA ----------- 2. 8.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The submission is that vacancies under Advertisement No. 1 and 2 of 2004 for appointment on the post of Constable remains available which are not being filled. The petitioners were 2 also an applicant. Learned counsel for the State points out that it remains a question whether the process of selection is still going on or it has come to an end. Mere availability of vacancies dos not create a right in an applicant to demand a mandamus to fill up the post. To fill up the post or not is the privilege of the employer but not an arbitrary power. Vacancies can remain unfilled but for valid and cogent reason. The writ application contains no details of the marks obtained by the petitioner and that any persons with lesser marks have been appointed. There are no allegations that a person lower in the merit panel than the petitioners have been appointed. This Court is not persuaded to start a roving inquiry into the appointments on an incomplete application at the behest of the petitioners. If the petitioners file a representation making disclosure of materials as noticed above to allege arbitrariness in action, and the process of selection has not been concluded, the respondents are required to consider their representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)