IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1144 of 2005 1. ARUN KUMAR AKELA 2. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV 3. BABULAL YADAV --------------PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1179 of 2005 1. SANTOSH KUMAR MANDAL 2. ASHISH KUMAR 3. MANISH KUMAR NIL--------PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 18.03.2011 No one appears for the petitioners Counsel for the State is present. Petitioners in both of these writ applications have prayed for a direction to the respondents for restraining them not to make appointment to the post of Constables from panel prepared in the light of the advertisement no. 01/2004 and to consider their cases for appointment to the post of constables in view of their empanelment, in the selection list of physically successful candidates. Petitioners in CWJC No. 1179 of 2005 claiming to be the empanelled candidates under Purnea Range of District of Katihar and Araria and petitioners in CWJC No. 1144 of 2005 claims to be the empanelled candidates under Koshi Range in the District of Saharsa. In none of the writ applications, it has been disclosed by the petitioners that in response to which 2 advertisement, they had applied for the post of constables and they were selected and empanelled. Simply they have stated that petitioners were empanelled in the selection list, unless entire panel is exhausted no fresh appointment could have been made for filling up the vacancies. Counsel appearing for the State has filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that in CWJC No. 10833 of 2004 (Giriha Raksha Wahini Vrs. State of Bihar), it has been decided that the issue relating to maintaining continuous process of recruitment of constable against a particular advertisement cannot be allowed. This issue was decided with respect to matters of advertisement No. 08/1998, though, petitioners have not disclosed that on the basis of which advertisement, they were empanelled and selected. But there is all probability that they also claims to be empanelled against advertisement No. 08 of 1998. The petitioners cannot claim that unless the entire vacancies on the basis of empanelment against advertisement no. 08 of 1998 are exhausted, no fresh vacancies should have been advertised for selection on the post. The issue has already been decided. I do not find any merit in these writ 3 applications. Both the writ applications are dismissed. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)