ORDER 1. From time to time various directions were given by this Court in different matters to ascertain the vacancies and to fill them up in accordance with the policy of the Government which, inter alia, provides regularization of daily wage workers working in the Government Departments. From time to time vacancies were ascertained. Advertisements were published requiring the daily wagers to respond to the same and they were appointed. This process continued for some time. In the meantime directions were given by this Court to also take steps to supply vacancies by those who had worked as Census workers. According to the latest affidavit filed by the State, total vacancies in the District of Madhubani was ascertained at 44, of them 5 posts could be filled up by candidated belonging to Backward Class category in accordance with the policy of the Government. It 5 posts could be filled up by Backward Class category, it is the case of the petitioner that he could occupy one of them but there is a doubt to that effect. He however, has not been appointed. The reason therefore is that no Backward Class category candidate could be appointed inasmuch as on earlier occasions Backward Class category candidates were appointed in excess of their quota. There is no dispute that the persons appointed prior to the petitioner from Backward Class category were higher up than the petitioner in the matter of consideration of their case for appointment. In such view of the matter there is no scope of issuing any direction. 2. The petitioner has contended that one candidate belonging to Backward Class category has been appointed whose position in the panel is much below than the petitioner. It has been stated in the oriental counter affidavit that the said person has been appointed in view of the that he was a census employee but not in any post reserved for Backward Class community but in a post available for General Class category. How a Backward Class candidate could be appointed to a post which could be occupied by a General Class a candidate has not been explained, but having regard to the fact that said person is not a party to the writ petition and his appointment being not challenged. I would not venture to go into that aspect of the matter. How a Backward Class candidate could be appointed to a post which could be occupied by a General Class a candidate has not been explained, but having regard to the fact that said person is not a party to the writ petition and his appointment being not challenged. I would not venture to go into that aspect of the matter. It is though unfortunate that despite being within the range of getting an appointment, the petitioner is not being offered an appointment for earlier a candidate belonging to Backward Class category has already occupied the post to which the petitioner could be appointed, the Court can fill for the petitioner, but can not do anything further. The petitioner seeks regularisation. The entire effort as was made was, in fact, for regularisation. The regularisation can only be made provided there are vacancies or the State genuinely requires more posts to be created. 3. Having regard to the fact that the vacancies as have been determined at 44 and that having been supplied, at present it does not appear that there is any scope of issuing a direction for regularisation. In the event in future any vacancy crops up, it shall be open to the petitioner, if at that time the policy for regularisation still remains in vogue, to take such appropriate recourse to law as he may be advised.