ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction to regularise his services on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department against the vacancy existing prior to 31.12.1987 in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.10514 of 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment against 200 posts of Assistant Engineer under the NREP scheme the petitioner applied for his appointment on one of the posts. The petitioner, however, was appointed along with other junior engineers as assistant engineers on ad hoc basis in the year 1987 and till date he is continuing as assistant engineer on ad hoc basis without any break of service and is drawing his salary and allowances etc. regularly, and, therefore, his case is required to be considered to fill up the identified posts of assistant engineer pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, as referred to above. Learned counsel further submitted that 72 vacancies had occurred and some of the vacancies were filled up and due to non-joining of some of the candidates, fifteen posts remained vacant till 1999 and on 7.5.1999 Road Construction Department announced through press communique that there are fifteen vacancies available from among the lot of 72 already identified vacancies, for which the name of the petitioner along with others was considered, but only thirteen persons in between serial nos. 467 to 492 to the gradation list were appointed and subsequently one Umesh Chandra Rai, who was at serial no. 477, was also appointed, but not against the vacancies of fifteen posts and till date two posts are lying vacant, and, therefore, the authority should consider the case of the petitioner as against those two vacancies. It is further submitted by learned counsel that Umesh Chandra Rai aforesaid was appointed on 3.8.1999 against one vacancy, which was caused due to cancellation of appointment of Sri Ranjit Singh. 4. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein a stand has been taken that the posts of assistant engineer are not vacant to be filled up from amongst the ad hoc assistant engineers and, therefore, the case of the petitioner had not been considered for his regularisation. 5. 4. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein a stand has been taken that the posts of assistant engineer are not vacant to be filled up from amongst the ad hoc assistant engineers and, therefore, the case of the petitioner had not been considered for his regularisation. 5. In course of hearing of this matter second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Road Construction Department, wherein it is stated that as per the records available in the Department there were only thirteen vacancies available and as such thirteen persons were appointed vide notification no. 4861 (s) dated 24.6.1999, as contained in annexure C/1 of this affidavit. It has also been stated that Umesh Chandra Rai aforesaid, who was at serial no. 477, was appointed against the vacancy caused due to cancellation of appointment of Ranjit Singh aforesaid and since the position of the petitioner in the gradation list is at serial no. 501 he does not come within the zone of consideration as the Department has taken a decision not to appoint any person from the panel of 1988 and has further decided to make appointment against vacant posts by advertisement through the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission"). 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the vacancies up to 31.12.1987 have been filled up and further vacancies have been advertised through the Commission, and, therefore, the question to regularise the service of the petitioner does not arise. 7. Mr. Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, now submits that from Annexure C/1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, it would appear that thirteen persons were appointed on the posts of assistant engineer to fill up the vacancies up to 31.12.1987 in between serial nos. 467 to 492 and out of them one Sri Shiv Kumar, whose name figures at serial no. 11 of annexure C/1 did not join the post, and, therefore, it is manifest that one post is still vacant and the same should go to the petitioner. 8. From the materials on record, it appears that Umesh Chandra Rai, who is at serial no. 11 of annexure C/1 did not join the post, and, therefore, it is manifest that one post is still vacant and the same should go to the petitioner. 8. From the materials on record, it appears that Umesh Chandra Rai, who is at serial no. 477, has not been appointed as against the vacancy created by Shiv Kumar aforesaid, whose name finds mentioned in annexure C/1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, rather he is said to have been appointed in place of Ranjit Singh, whose name does not find place in the list, as contained in annexure C/1. 9. Thus, it is manifest that atleast one post is still available to be filled up as against the vacancies caused prior to 31.12.1987 in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 10514 of 1996. The post, as such, therefore, must be filled up from amongst the persons, who were eligible as per the direction of the Supreme Court aforesaid and that post, in my opinion, should not be filled up by way of fresh advertisement. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is working on the post as such on ad hoc basis since 1987. The necessary decision in this regard must be taken by the authorities concerned within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.