JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha & Gurusharan Sharma JJ. The petitioners in this application have prayed for issuance of a writ or direction upon the respondents to quash the recommendation dated 11.7.1991 made by respondent no. 4 and further for a direction to appoint the petitioners on the basis of list of successful candidates prepared on 17.5.1991 in the post of Excise Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits. 2. An advertisement was issued on 13.5.1987 by the Bihar State Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board for appointment on different posts including the posts of Sub-Inspectors pursuant whereof the petitioners applied. The petitioners appeared at the written examination and they allegedly were declared successful. The petitioners were thereafter directed to appear for physical test, where after allegedly a merit list of successful candidates was prepared on 17-5-1991, which is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, The petitioners have contended that their names figure at serial nos. 10, 15 and 13 respectively of the aforementioned list, The petitioners applied for supply of their mark-sheet in the office of respondent no. 4 and respondent no, 4 and also ordered for supply of the mark-sheet to the petitioners, the copies where of are contained in Annexure 6 series to the writ application. 3. According to the petitioners another list was prepared on 11.7.1991 wherein their names did not figure. The petitioners allegedly applied for mark-sheet for the second time and the said mark-sheet had also been issued which are contained in Annexure 7 series to the writ application. 4. It has been contended that the persons, whose names appear below in the merit list than the petitioners, had been recommended by respondent no. 4 for appointment ignoring the case of the petitioners. 5. In the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that various persons whose roll numbers have been mentioned in paragraph 4 there of had already been appointed. It has been stated that the names of several persons even do not appear in Annexure 5 to the writ application. 6. The State has filed a counter affidavit, interalia, stating therein that Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board has now merged with the Bihar Public Service Commission. It has been stated that Bihar Public Service Commission has also been requested to take necessary action in the matter in the light of letter dated 7.5.1993. 6. The State has filed a counter affidavit, interalia, stating therein that Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board has now merged with the Bihar Public Service Commission. It has been stated that Bihar Public Service Commission has also been requested to take necessary action in the matter in the light of letter dated 7.5.1993. It has been stated that the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board has not sent the list to the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. 7. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Bihar Public Service Commission wherein interalia it has been stated as follows: “In reply to the statements made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is to be stated that the records of the dissolved Board were left in its Rooms and God-owns locked by the dissolved Board and the keys of which were handed over to the Bihar Public Service Commission without any handing over charge of the records. On opening the rooms and god-owns thereafter the Bihar Public Service Commission found the records, answer books etc. left in total disarray. The Commission had to go through the papers, records and answer books dumped in these rooms and god-owns by the dissolved Board to find out the relevant documents regarding the individual cases. In many cases records, registers, answer books, mark-sheets etc. were not found. Neither was there any information regarding where abouts of the records of the dissolved Board. In the present case the Commission after a long and urgent search could find only the marks abstract an Marks Details of the candidates.” It has further been stated that it had been found that many mistakes and great bung-lings had been done in the matter of recommendations made by the Bihar State Subordinate Selection Board. It was also found that the mark-sheets were prepared by the examiners themselves and not by the Board. It is stated that many irregularities have also been found in preparation of the marks sheets by the examiners. It has been stated that as the examiners did not know the roll number of the candidates, the entry of such roll numbers could only be made when the same is received in the office of the Board/Commission. It is stated that many irregularities have also been found in preparation of the marks sheets by the examiners. It has been stated that as the examiners did not know the roll number of the candidates, the entry of such roll numbers could only be made when the same is received in the office of the Board/Commission. It is stated that when in the mark-sheets, the mistakes were detected and compared with the marks details, the dissolved Board accordingly modified the merit list and corrected the marks by different orders dated 11.7.1991. It is stated that relevant answer books of the petitioners are not available and the mark-sheets supplied to the petitioners were from the uncorrected marks register of the dissolved Board and thus in view of the non-availability of answer books, the same could not be verified. The Commission stated the detailed mark sheet of the petitioners to be as follows :- Name of the petitioners Roll No. Subject Subject Marks in the detailed Code mark-sheet. 1. Shri Kamod Kr. Singh 03/15858 51472 G.K. 29 91465 Math 53 122814 Pl. Sc. 38 Total 120 2. Shri Pramod Kr. Singh 03/16311 51807 G.K. 02 91476 Math 00 122993 Pol. Sc. 02 Total 4 3. Shri Sanjay Kr. Singh 0/09999 47191 G.K. 30 75530 Arith Math 86 102498 Chem. 72 Total 188 According to the Commission as the last recommended candidate had secured 194 marks, the petitioners could not be appointed as they could not secure the said marks 8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission wherein it has been stated that inspite of best efforts to find out the chart mentioned by the petitioners the same could not be found in the office of the dissolved Board. A copy of the list of candidates along with number of answer books has been annexed as Annexure 5. The Commission has also annexed a list of candidates along with the number of answer books found of each candidate whose names figure in Annexure 5 but do not find place in annexure 1 with the said supplementary counter affidavit and which is marked as Annexure R-5/B. It has been stated that in relation to the advertisement in question, an enquiry was directed to be made by this Court in MJC No. 242 of 1993 arising out of CWJC No. 1112/92. Bihar State Subordinate Service Examinee Federation Vs. Bihar State Subordinate Service Examinee Federation Vs. State of Bihar and others wherein a Division Bench of this Court appointed Shri S.N. Biswas, Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, as an enquiry officer. Shri Biswas upon making a through enquiry submitted a report to this Court, a copy whereof has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit and marked as Annexure-5C thereto According to the Commission in absence of most of the records and answer books, it is unable to confirm the list submitted by the dissolved Board. 9. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that from a perusal of the select list as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, it would appear that the same contains the names of the petitioners. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 to the supplementary counter affidavit and it was submitted on the basis thereof that from the list of persons mentioned therein, it would appear that Mr. Yadav, who had secured marks far below the petitioners has been appointed. It has been submitted that all sorts of bung-lings had been done after the select list as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application was prepared by the dissolved Board. Learned counsel pointed out that although this writ application has been filed on 7.10.1991, appointments have been made after filing of this writ application. It has further been stated that in fact, the recommendations for appointments have been made even after dissolution of the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board unauthorisedly and after filing of this writ application. Learned counsel further contended that from a comparison of the list filed by the Commission with Annexure 5 it would appear that even persons whose answer books are not available had been appointed by the Commission. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the case of one Sanjay kumar. 10. It was submitted that Annexure 5 to the writ application should be considered to be the merit list. It was further submitted that nobody has been found responsible for the bung-lings done by the Bihar State Subordinate Selection Board and thus only the select list which is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application should be acted upon and appointment should be directed to be made only on the basis there of. 11. It was further submitted that nobody has been found responsible for the bung-lings done by the Bihar State Subordinate Selection Board and thus only the select list which is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application should be acted upon and appointment should be directed to be made only on the basis there of. 11. In this case, the State has neither filed a detailed counter affidavit nor we got any assistance from the counsel appearing on behalf of the state Mr. Swaraj Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission, however, submitted that there cannot be any doubt that serious bung-lings had been done by the officers of the Bihar State Subordinate service Selection Board in preparing three lists of candidates which did not tally with each other. It has been stated that even those lists go to indicate that the same were not authenticated. The Commission also according to Mr. Ghosh, is not in a position to ascertain as to which of the lists contain the actual recommendations made by the dissolved Board. It has been pointed out that whereas advertisement has been issued notifying vacancies only for 28 posts, the Commission had recommended the names of 73 candidates. It has been submitted that no panel is available on the records. It has been pointed out that the recommendations for appointment had been made by the Board even after its dissolution. According to learned counsel, all the answer books are not available and are still being searched out. It was pointed out by Mr. Ghosh that for appointment in various departments even such persons have been recommended who did not hold requisite qualifications there for. In this situation, Mr. Ghosh, submitted that as recommended by Shri Biswas, the entire examination should be cancelled and a re-examination may be directed to be held. 12. From a perusal of the aforementioned report as contained in Annexure R-5/C to the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that even the original advertisement could not be found by Shri Biswas. From a photocopy of the advertisement which was of the year 1987 it appeared that 28 posts were available for Sub-Inspector of Excise, 23 posts of Pragati Sahayak, Animal Husbandry, 20 posts of Assistant Jailor, Home (Police) and 24 posts of Compiler Statistics and Evaluation (Planning) Department, were available. From a photocopy of the advertisement which was of the year 1987 it appeared that 28 posts were available for Sub-Inspector of Excise, 23 posts of Pragati Sahayak, Animal Husbandry, 20 posts of Assistant Jailor, Home (Police) and 24 posts of Compiler Statistics and Evaluation (Planning) Department, were available. It has been pointed out that number of candidates recommended by the Board is much more than the number of vacancies contained in the advertisement. For the post of Sub-Inspector, Excise 73 persons were recommended for the post of Assistant Jaior 63 posts were recommended for the post of Statistical Complier 36 posts were recommended and for the post of Pragati Sahayak, Animal Husbandry, 23 posts were recommended where as recommendations have been made for 4 posts of Enumerator, one post of cashier and one post of Librarian. It was found that the Board had not prepared any panel from which the recommendations could be made but despite the same dissolved Board recommended various persons even after 22.10.1991 i.e. the date when it was dissolved. It has been pointed out that on 29.9.1992 recommendations were made for appointment in 6 posts of Sub-Inspector. Excise, purported to be against the communications received from Excise Commissioner on 22-11-1991, 5-12-1991 and 25-2-1992 and allegedly the names of 15 persons for the posts of Assistant jailors were also recommended. It has peen stated that the said letter was signed on 4.2.1992. He again made recommendations of 66 candidates for appointment in various posts of Extension Supervisors on 4.3.1992 and recommended 32 names for appointment in the Bihar State Housing Board although he signed the same on 4.2.1992. Various other irregularities and incidents of bungling have also been highlighted in the said report. 13. From the report of Shri Biswas there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a great deal of bungling had been done by the officers of the State of Bihar. It is really surprising as to how the State of Bihar had been tolerating such officers and as to why the services of all such persons who had illegally been appointed had not been terminated. 14. The contention of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh to the effect that the select list as contained in Annexure 5 of the writ petition is final, and thus appointment should be made from the said select list cannot be accepted for more than one reason. 14. The contention of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh to the effect that the select list as contained in Annexure 5 of the writ petition is final, and thus appointment should be made from the said select list cannot be accepted for more than one reason. It is now well known by reason of various decisions of the Supreme Court of India that no person has a right of appointment but they have merely a right to be considered there for. 15. In the instant case, it has been categorically asserted in the counter affidavit that the different recommendations had been made by the Officers of the Bihar State Sub-Ordinate Services Selection Board from time to time. Even appointments have been made in excess of the advertised vacancy. In this situation, we have no other option but to hold that it is not possible for a direction upon the State to appoint the petitioner which would not only perpetuate the illegality committed by the Bihar State Sub-ordinate Selection Board but also would mean that the State will have to appoint more persons then the existing Vacancies. Such a direction by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not contemplated. 16. We, therefore, are unable to grant any relief to the petitioners, However keeping in view the opinion of Shri Biswas, we think it proper to observe that the State should immediately take remedial measures as suggested by Shri Biswas in his report i.e. by canceling the result of the examination for which three merit lists exist in the commission and by filling up the said vacancy by a fresh advertisement and upon taking a fresh examination, We may also note that Shri Biswas in his report had further recommended that those candidates who had appeared in the examination may again be given a chance to appear in the next examination even if they have crossed the age limit, We hope and trust that in this situation, the recommendations of Shri Biswas require serious consideration by the highest authorities of the State at an early date. We also hope that the State shall take strict actions against such officers who are responsible for making recruitment procedures laid down by the states as a mockery. In our opinion, such persons should severely be dealt with. We also hope that the State shall take strict actions against such officers who are responsible for making recruitment procedures laid down by the states as a mockery. In our opinion, such persons should severely be dealt with. This application, is dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.