Judgment 1. The Court has not received an answer to the enquiry made on 12th July, 2000 as also the aspect as to why the State of Bihar has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal when the writ petition of one Yadubanshi Prasad was virtually dismissed. The decision dated 19 August, 1999 on the writ petition which denied the relief to the petitioner is in favour of the State of Bihar. 2. It is for this reason that on 12th July 2000 on the present Letters Patent Appeal the Court passed the following order which is reproduced : "In re. the Letters Patent appeal upon the Court enquiring as to what exactly is the error in the order on the writ petition impugned in effect calling upon the State of Bihar to issue a public advertisement before proceeding to make appointments when the case of the petitioner was virtually dismissed and the petitioner was required to fall in line and wait for a public advertisement and thereafter he would be considered along with other candidates with the only concession that his weightage of having worked as a daily wager should be given due consideration, no reply could be given by the appellant. The contention on the present appeal is, whoever may have instructed learned State counsel, to submit that the surplus of the other departments has to be adjusted. The Court did enquire on how much is the surplus of other departments in the context. State counsel sought an adjournment until Monday. Put up on Monday, i.e. 17.7.2000." No answer is forthcoming to the Court today. 3 The State of Bihar appears to be acting shy in taking recourse to issuing a public advertisement in filling up posts i.e. Class IV posts of peons. It is being explained to the Court that there is a surplus of other departments which needs to be absorbed. If the posts have been filled in accordance with the sanctioned strength then the question of any further recruitment or for that matter regularisation does not arise. But, if there are posts vacant, then, public accountability demands that these vacant posts otherwise sanctioned, should be filled by a public advertisement. If the posts have been filled in accordance with the sanctioned strength then the question of any further recruitment or for that matter regularisation does not arise. But, if there are posts vacant, then, public accountability demands that these vacant posts otherwise sanctioned, should be filled by a public advertisement. If an attempt is made to fill these posts by the surplus within the department or from other departments, there will always be a question of public accountability on questioning how were the persons who are surplus today given their jobs. This answer is not being given to the Court. 4. Dismissed.