IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5903 of 2011 1. Ranjeet Kumar Singh S/o Mahadeo Singh, R/o village- Sareiya, PS- Baniapur, Distt- Saran at Chapra 2. Lokesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Late Mahesh Dubey, R/o village- Asti, PS- Baniapur, Disttt—Saran—-------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Home Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The I.G. of Police (Home Guard) Bihar, Patna 5. The Dy. I.G. of Police, Saran Range at Chapra 6. The Collector Saran at Chapra, Distt- Chapra 7. The S.P. Distt- Saran at Charpa------Respondents ----------- 2 29.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. An advertisement was issued in the year 2006 as Advertisement No. 1 of 2006. This was for recruitment of Home- Guards. Selections were carried out and appointments made. Petitioners were some of the persons whose names did not find place in the final merit list though their names did figure in the wait list at serial nos. 11 and 12. After the exercise of such appointment concluded petitioners discovered that there was some posts left vacant due to non- joining by the selected candidates. Prayer made in the writ application is that their cases ought to be considered against the vacancies caused due to non-joining. The basis of their claim is on the basis of similar matter decided by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 5289 of 2010 which was the case of Ranjeet Kumar & others vrs. The State of Bihar & others disposed of on 18.11.2010. This order is annexure-6 to the writ application. With due respect to learned Single Judge that such an order ought not to have been passed for consideration in the background of 2 the law which has been well settled by Apex Court that life of a panel is for one year but the moment the appointments are made the panel gets exhausted. Any vacancy arising due to non-joining or otherwise will not automatically accrue to the people who were in the wait list unless provided for but have to be carried over for future vacancies. This view has been reiterated by the Apex Court. If that be the law of the land declared by the highest Court then the analogy that the life of a panel subsists for a year and if any vacancy arises within the period of one year, people down the line get a right of appointment does not seem to be correct. In view of the same and also keeping in mind that the appointments have been carried out, even according to the petitioners’ way back in the year 2008, no direction in their favour can be given now. Any vacancy which subsists will accrue in favour of those candidates who have become eligible in due course. In view of the same no direction is required to be given in favour of the petitioners This writ application is dismissed. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)