IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16195 of 2009 1. RAJEEV RANJAN S/O SRI JAMUNA SINGH VILL+P.O. BELA, P.S. AURANGABAD, DISTT. AURANGABAD 2. RAVI PRAKASH SINGH S/O LATE GAYA SINGH R/O KALI CLUB, NAWADIH ROAD, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 3. CHANDRA BHUSHAN KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI SHIVNATH PRASAD R/O SAHAPUR, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 4. GUPTESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE FODLI SINGH VILL- DHAMNI KHAIRA, P.O. KHAIRA, P.S. KASAMA, DISTT. AURANGABAD 5. SURESH PRASAD S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR PRASAD R/O SAHAPUR, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 6. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE GAYA SINGH R/O KALI CLUB, NAWADIH ROAD, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 7. MANORANJAN KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD R/O G.T. ROAD, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 8. RAVI RANJAN KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD R/O G.T. ROAD, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 9. SHARAVAN KUMAR S/O SRI NATHUNI RAM R/O SAHAPUR, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 10. SATYANARAYAN GUPTA S/O SRI RAMAWATAR PRASAD GUPTA R/O DHARANIDHAR PRASAD, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 11. SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA R/O SAHAPUR, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD 12. SHASHIKANT PATHAK S/O LATE SRIKANT PATHAK VILL+P.O. MIRJAPUR, P.S. MISCORE, DISTT. NAWADA 13. MANISH KUMAR SINHA S/O SRI SACHIDANAND PRASAD SINHA R/O DARAJI MOHALLA (BIRATPUR), P.O.+P.S.+DISTT. AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH PRAMANDAL, GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD, DISTT. AURANGABAD ----------- 2. 06.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners claim to be daily-wagers working in the Aurangabad Collectorate. They claim permanent appointment. No direction can be given, and neither can the respondents in the year 2009, proceed to make appointments under an inconclusive advertisement published in the year 2000. To do so shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it shall shut out from consideration fresh applicants who may have become eligible in the meantime. In any event of the matter keeping an advertisement pending since 2000 till 2009 for the purpose of appointment is per se arbitrary. If there are sanctioned vacancies of Class IV in the Aurangabad Collectorate, it shall be the discretion of the respondents to fill the same or not. No mandamus can be issued to that extent. But if the respondents are utilizing the services of daily-wagers/ad-hoc employees on Class IV keeping the sanctioned vacancy unfilled, the employment of daily-wagers on such post is not proper. Mandamus shall issue in that event and which this Court directs. Let the respondents fill up the sanctioned vacancy in the Aurangabad Collectorate on Class IV within a maximum period of one year from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order after publishing open advertisement through wide circulation giving adequate opportunity to all who consider themselves eligible to apply. After expiry of the period of one year all daily wage appointments against the sanctioned vacancy shall cease in which event the responsibility shall lie with the respondents alone. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)