JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, pursuant to advertisement dated 9.11.93 for the appointment of Assistants in the Secretariat and other concerned offices, had applied for the same and had appeared in the said examination. Due to non-joining of some of the successful candidates of the Secretariat and connected offices, as some posts remained vacant, as such, a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission and the State Government be given to consider the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on the said posts, as according to the learned counsel the person having the same mark has also been considered and appointed, pursuant to the said examination. 2. Though the claim of the petitioner has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State but it has been stated that on the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the appointments have already been made. However, some candidates have not joined their respective posts. Further stand of the State as per paragraph-8 of the counter-affidavit, is that 24 candidates did not turn up for their certificate verification, despite several reminders/notices and after publishing the notice in the newspaper. Their recommendation has already been returned to the B.P.S.C. meaning thereby that more than 24 posts still remained vacant. 3. The stand of the B.P.S.C. on the other hand, is that as the recommendation is more than one year old the said panel, in view of the Govt. Circular has already lost its force and no appointment can be made from a stale panel. 4. The stand of the B.P.S.C. appears to be slightly contradictory in nature, as 24 posts, which have been returned to the B.P.S.C. appear subsequent to 31st March, 1996, i.e., after one year had elapsed. Had the panel lost its force, there was no question of returning the said recommendation to the B.P.S.C. Further more, equity also appears to be weighing in favour of the petitioners, as a person having same mark is said to have been appointed, pursuant to the said examination. 5. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment in the case of Jai Narayan Ram vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1996, SC 703). 5. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment in the case of Jai Narayan Ram vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1996, SC 703). In the said case the Supreme Court has held that in case the candidate duly selected through P.S.C. opts not to join service then denial of appointment to next four qualified candidates standing in the merit list on the ground that there was no requisition by the State Government to the P.S.C. for preparation of waiting list was improper. 6. Similarly in the present case due to non-joining or failing of the requisite papers some candidates had not joined and the recommendation had been returned to the B.P.S.C. 7. It has been stated that the petitioner finds a place in the merit list and as a candidate having same marks has been appointed and the posts are still vacant, I direct the B.P.S.C. to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if his contention that a candidate having same mark has been recommended in the same category it will recommend the name of the petitioner to the State Government and the Respondent State shall issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a' period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the B.P.S.C. 8. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the B.P.S.C. 9. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.