IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3998 of 2009 Md.Khurshid Alam & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Counsel for the State points out that the grievance is with regard to a panel prepared in the year 1991 and 1999 for appointment on Class-IV posts, the petitioners being a daily wager. They themselves state that an advertisement has subsequently been issued in the year 2008, in response to which they could have applied. No mandamus can be issued today for consideration or otherwise with regard to a panel prepared the year 1991 and 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he seeks a limited relief that as and when an advertisement is issued and the petitioners apply, they should be considered in accordance with law. The second submission is that if no validity can be given to any panel prepared in 1991 or 1999, there can be no carry over of seniority from those panels in any new panel to be prepared under a fresh advertisement which has to be a fresh merit 2 panel. The right to be considered afresh in accordance with law under any fresh advertisement issued is a right that cannot be denied to the respondents. A panel cannot have a life beyond one year as otherwise it shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it would debar the fresh eligible from applying to be considered. The question of any carry over of seniority from such extinct panel in law, does not arise. Any fresh panel has to be prepared strictly on basis of merit to be assessed afresh. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)