Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This writ petition on behalf of two petitioners has been filed seeking direction to fill 48 posts of Agriculture Inspector/Block Agriculture Officer or equivalent posts by candidates belonging to Backward classes who had passed the B.Sc (Agricultue) Examination between 1980 and 1987, and to appoint them on such posts in the process. They had earlier also approached this Court in CWJC No. 5279 of 1995. this Court declined to grant any relief observing that the chain system of appointment having been held to be ultra vires by this Court no order can be passed in their favour. They were, however, permitted to pursue the representation which they claimed to have filed. 2. The matter seems to have been examined at different levels by the departments of Agriculture and Personnel and Administrative Reforms in the light of the said observation of this Court. At one stage, it was decided to consider the leftover candidates belonging to the Backward classes category and accordingly on, 30-12-1997 vide Annexure-7 particulars were called for from the candidates at large to be submitted by 25-1-1998 giving reference to CWJC No. 5279 of 1995 (Supra) and circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Later on 13-3-1998 vide Anneyure-6 candidates were asked to appear with the requisite papers for interview. Subsequently, however, the government decided not to make any appointment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 13-3-1998 which was cancelled. A notice to this effect was published on 6-5-2000 vide Annexure-1. A speaking order was also passed in the matter by the Director of Agriculture on 30-6-2000 vide Annexure-2. The petitioners seek quashing of the said notice and the order. 3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit taking the stand, in substance, that the desired appointment would be contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Deota Nath Tiwary V/s. State of Bihar 1989 PLJR 580. 4. In order to appreciate the point at issue, the background of the case may briefly be mentioned. In the year 1978, the State Government took a policy decision that the Village Level Workers possessing Graduate degree in Agriculture from the Rajendra Agriculture University would be appointed as Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis. 4. In order to appreciate the point at issue, the background of the case may briefly be mentioned. In the year 1978, the State Government took a policy decision that the Village Level Workers possessing Graduate degree in Agriculture from the Rajendra Agriculture University would be appointed as Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis. On 4-11-1981, the Government decided to abolish the chain system of appointment and, in stead, to make appointment on the basis of merit on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, However, on 24-4-1982 the Government reverted to the chain system of appointment confining the benefit thereof to the Agriculture Graduates passing up to the year 1980 from the Agriculture University in Bihar and up to the year 1979 from any University out side the Bihar. Persons obtaining Agriculture Graduate degree thereafter were to be appointed on the basis of recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission. The said decision was challenged in the aforesaid case of Deota Nath Tiwary. this Court held that the chain systemof appointment was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No preferential treatment could be given to the persons having inferior merit merely because they had passed the examination earlier and remained unemployed for a particular period. Accordingly this Court quashed the said resolution dated 24-4-1982. The judgment is 1989 PLJR 580. 5. The persons aggrieved by the said decision of this Court, who had been appointed on the post in the meantime, moved the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 17840-41 of 1993. Before the Supreme Court, the State Government took a stand that the Government wants to boost up the agriculture development programmes but the development work was hampering due to vacant posts and therefore, in order to utilise the experience and services of the petitioners had no objection to take them back in service if the Supreme Court permits the same. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the affidavit as under: That after a good deal of consideration on facts and circumstances mentioned above, the State Government in the Department of Agriculture is desirous of utilising the experience and services of the petitioners on humanitarian ground and has no objection in taking them back in service in the Department of the Hon ble Supreme Court is pleased to permit the same. In view of the said stand of the State Government, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs on 1-12-1994 in the following terms: In view of the supplementary counter-affidavit of Shri Ram Babu Singh, Deputy Director (Admn.), Agriculture Department Government of Bihar, Patna dated 30-9-1994 filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, there can be no doubt that the State of Bihar is too keen to redress all the grievances of the petitioner which as it says, it fully appreciates in view of this stand taken by the State of Bihar in the supplementary counter-affidavit so filed, there is really no occasion this Court to interfere in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution. These S.L.Ps. are therefore, disposed of for the said reason. Apparently, feeling inspired by the above order of the Supreme Court, the petitioners made representation for their appointment and later came to this Court in CWJC No. 5279 of 1995. As stated above, this Court virtually dismissed their claim. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the order of this Court as under: As this Court has declared the chain system as ultra vires, no order can be passed in favour of petitioners. It is asserted that the petitioners have represented their case for consideration before the State Government. The State Government may consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. The petitioners do not dispute that what they are seeking in substance is their appointment on the basis of year of passing the examination, i.e., appointment as per chain system as provided in the resolution dated 24-4-1982 (Supra) which has been held to be ultra vires and quashed by this Court. The case of the petitioners, however, is that it was due to mistake on the part of the Department that 48 vacancies in the Backward classes category remained unfilled, for which the candidates of that category should not be made to suffer. They rely on the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. But, it is obvious that by the said order, on concession the appointments already made only were protected. It was submitted by the Counsel that had the petitioners been appointed in the same transaction they too would have got similar protection. The argument, based as it is on hypothesis, cannot be accepted. But, it is obvious that by the said order, on concession the appointments already made only were protected. It was submitted by the Counsel that had the petitioners been appointed in the same transaction they too would have got similar protection. The argument, based as it is on hypothesis, cannot be accepted. The Courts usually do not interfere with the appointments already made but it does not mean that the persons allegedly similarly situate should be allowed to be appointed even though such appointment would be illegal. That would plainly amount to continuing a wrong. In the instant case, it would be contrary to the decision of this Court which was not interfered with by the Supreme Court. 7. The petitioners cannot claim any vested right of appointment. They had only a right to be considered against the available vacancy. But, they came forward only after the Supreme Court passed the above said order on 1-12-1994. Indeed, as stated more than once above, this Court virtually rejected the claim of the petitioners. I wonder, if the Government could appoint the petitioners. The rejection of the representation and refusal to appoint the petitioners according to chain system on the basis of their passing the qualifying examination prior to 1980, cannot be said to be erroneous. 8. It appears from the affidavit of the State that requisition has been sent by the State Government to Bihar Public Service Commission for taking steps to fill 48 vacancies on the post of Block Agriculture Officer and equivalent posts in the Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service, It, is open to the petitioners to participate in the recruitment before the Commission. 9. In the result, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.