IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.299 of 2003 HARINANDAN PRASAD s/o Late Bangali Prasad, r/o village- Ratanpur, Post Office- Dariyapur, Police Station- Islampur, District- Nalanda… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner, Deptt. Of Health, Bihar 3. Asstt. Director, Health Services (Falaria control), Deptt. Of Health, Patna, Bihar. 4. Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 3. 02.07.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present and has filed counter affidavit, a copy whereof was already served way back on the counsel for the petitioner on respondents 28.08.2003. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. for directing the respondent authorities to make appointment to the vacant posts of fourth grade’s namely i.e. superior field workers, filed workers, peon etc. in Health Services (Falaria Control) vide notification dated October 1998 (Adv. No. Deptt. Of Information and Public Relation 1549 (H-80) 98-99).”.. Counsel for the State would submit that aforementioned advertisement would not be given effect to 2 on account of certain administrative exigencies including bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar. In this context, he invites attention of this Court towards paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit; “7. That it is submitted that till date the State Advisory Committee has not devided the cadre strength between two States, therefore, until the actual cadre strength/vacant position is known to the respondent it will be difficult to make further appointments. It will not be out of place to mention herein that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement no interview etc. has been conducted due to byfircation of the State.”. That being so, there is no denial to the fact nor there could not be one on account of the admitted subsequent event of division of erstwhile State of Bihar, the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of mandamus must be held to have become infructuous. It is even otherwise well settled that there would be no indefeasible right of appointment only because a person is empanelled pursuant to an advertisement. Here was a case of an advertisement which was also not acted upon and had to be left in the midst of selection on account of division of the State. 3 That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)