IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7877 of 2007 1. MANOJ KUMAR, son of Late Harinandan Pd., Resident of village and Post Shahtha (Ladla Tola) via Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 2. Anil Kumar, son of Sri Basdeo Prasad, resident of village and Post Hilalpur, P.S. Industrial Area, District Vaishali at Hajipur … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, the Chief Minister, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 5. The Agriculture Director, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 6. The Joint Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna 7. The District Agriculture Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 8. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur … Respondents. ----------- 2. 8.7.2009 Heard Mr. Bindyachal Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The limited scope of service jurisprudence in which an empanelled candidate has no indefeasible right of being appointed stares in the face of the petitioners of this case. In 1987 advertisement there were certain number of posts which were sought to be filled up but a few vacancies of them from 88 to 80 had been curtailed on account of those being 2 filled up by transfer from certain surplus employee. The State, therefore, had confined appointment of rest of the persons empanelled and they were also appointed way back in the year 1994. The petitioners, however, whose name were not in the panel but in the waiting list, kept on representing their case that there were certain vacancies and they should be taken in service. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the life of the panel came to an end and the petitioners being the candidate of general category in the waiting list, when the respondents could not even complete the appointment of those selected and empanelled candidates of general category, it was impossible for them to appoint the petitioners. This Court would find force in the aforementioned stand of the respondent State and the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners pressing for reconsideration of the case of the petitioners against the posts of general category on the ground of candidates of 3 reserved category were subsequently appointed must be rejected on its face value. This court cannot direct the respondents for appointing the petitioners on the vacancy of reserved category from the panel. Infact the advertisement of the year 1987 and selection made some twenty years back in which the process of appointment on all the posts for general category was also completed in 1994 can be kept above as an ongoing exercise. That being so, this Court would find that there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/