IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10289 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 25.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicant under Advertisement No. 128 of 1996 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. Their grievance is that the respondents were bound to consider their case against non-joining vacancies of person higher in the panel. It is not in dispute that the panel was published as far back as in May, 2002. Reliance is placed on certain orders of this Court dated 15.5.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 14385 of 2006, giving direction for filling up non- joining posts in pursuance to Advertisement No. 25 of 1999, to claim similar relief. It is lastly urged that even against Advertisement No. 128 of 1996, appointments have been made against non-joining vacancies as recent as 2005 and vacancies still remain. Counsel for the State urged that there remain no further vacancies under Advertisement No. 128 of 1996. It is not controverted on behalf of the petitioners, that subsequently more than one advertisement has been published by the Commission inter alia for appointment on the 2 post of Assistant Engineer and appointments made. The respondents have further placed reliance on a Division Bench order in C.W.J.C. No. 12421 of 2008, to inter alia urge that merely because the petitioners were empanelled, that would not create a right in them to demand their appointment against non-joining vacancies, when fresh advertisements have already been issued. On facts, the results were published in May, 2002. The plea that they were pursuing the matter by representations does not appeal to the Court as it is not a sufficient explanation more so when the question of third party rights also arises by the creation of a new work force who may have become eligible in the meantime to apply and be considered also. It is equally settled law that similarity on grounds with another case cannot be sufficient justification to grant the same relief with regard to one who has not been vigilant about his rights. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the Government is the Principal employer in the State. On account of the laches of the petitioners themselves in being vigilant, a wholly new work force of eligible persons has arisen in between May, 2002 and July, 2008 when the writ was filed. To hold that this new work force has no right to be considered and to apply for appointment under the Government which 3 must be kept reserved for the present petitioners under an Advertisement of 1996, shall be doing gross injustice to and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Appointment in Government service has been described as a national wealth open to all eligible to apply. This Court, therefore, for the conduct of the petitioners themselves also finds it difficult to grant any relief to them as the selection made in May, 2002 obviously ran its life by May, 2003 as any continuance of that panel beyond a period of one year would again be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the respondents have made appointments after one year wrongly from that panel, it cannot bring any relief to the petitioners when on the facts of their own case they have failed to make out any ground for interference. This Court respectively concurs with the reasoning contained in C.W.J.C. No. 12421 of 2008 by the Division Bench. The application is rejected. If the petitioners apply against any fresh advertisement, it is expected that the respondents shall duly consider them for relaxation of age in accordance with law keeping in mind that they had otherwise qualified earlier. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)