Judgment 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.8.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 6253 of 2006, whereby, the claim of the original writ petitioners who are appellants before us for appointment as Veterinary Officers came to be turned down with the direction to hold fresh procedure for recruitment of the Veterinary Officers in the Department of Animal Husbandry. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have, also, examined the facts and circumstances. The principles governing the service jurisprudence are, also, considered. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement to fill up 225 posts of Veterinary Officers in the Department of Animal Husbandry, total 741 applications were received out of which 718 persons were called for interview. Later on, a select list came to be prepared and the same was brought to the notice of the Public by a publication. The original writ petitioners contention has been that though their names have been recommended by the Bihar Public Service but they are not appointed. Therefore, they sought a direction by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unsuccessfully.-Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It is found from the record and the submissions that the recommendations came to be made by the Bihar Public Service Commission and the petitioners were some of the persons in the list recommended who could not be appointed though recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The very painful and heart burning point which is addressed to us on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission is that the State Government was constrained to initiate and move criminal law by filing a First Information Report in view of the preliminary report filed by the Vigilance Department of the Government. It was found that there were so many irregularities and illegalities. Therefore, 718 candidates though interviewed and recommended in view of the requirement of the Government requisition, the process could not be completed. There is no any doubt about the fact that the Chairperson and other members of the then Bihar Public Service Commission were, also, under scanner and some of them were, also, sent to jail. It is in these context, how can a person merely on recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission seek legal redressal and that too by a constitutional writ? It is in these context, how can a person merely on recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission seek legal redressal and that too by a constitutional writ? Whether the original writ petitioners were parties to any illegality or irregularities is not the question before us. The whole question is that there had been illegalities and irregularities which has culminated into criminal actions. 5. Apart from that, it is the settled proposition of law of service jurisprudence that mere enlistment, empanelment or inclusion in the select list even by the employer, ordinarily, does not vest any right in the selectee. Nobody can claim a constitutional protection merely on this ground. This proposition requires no further elucidation. Therefore, on this count, also, regardless of the first ground, the original writ petitioners, appellants before us, have no case. It cannot be said that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are unreasonable or unjust. 6. In the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that those are the best suited directions and the Government shall carry out the same as directed. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to raise our hands in helplessness and to dismiss this Letters patent Appeal at the admission stage after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed.