Judgment 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the challenge is against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.6.2006 in CWJC No. 1302 of 2005, whereby, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the merits and the challenge against the impugned order, let there be projection of the material facts:- (i) The District Judge published an advertisement and thereby invited applications for filling up 17 permanent posts of peon and five temporary post of peon of Fast Track Court of the district of Nalanda, whose services were co-terminus with the coming to an end of the Fast Track Courts. 3. It is true that the advertisement directed the candidates to apply separately for such posts. Some applications were for permanent post and some were for temporary posts. The were 17 permanent posts and five temporary posts, as aforesaid. 4. The selection for the appointment of 17 permanent posts as well as five temporary posts of peon came to be made out of the applicants who had applied for the permanent post. 5. It is in these context, the grievance which is voiced in the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been that the persons who had applied for permanent posts should not have been considered for temporary posts adverse to the interest of the appellant-original writ petitioner. 6. After having examined the entire record, factual matrix, as well as, the text and tenor of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we find from the record that the District Court, Nalanda had issued an advertisement inviting applications for 17 permanent post for regular Civil Court and only five temporary posts of peon for Fast Track Court which were not permanent. 7. If the candidates are found eligible, qualified and competent, there is no ban or ban in considering their merits for permanent posts or temporary posts in the Civil Court. The advertisement was given and, therefore, the contention that the applicants who had applied for permanent post of peon in the Fast Track Court should not have been considered for the temporary posts of Civil Court cannot be accepted in view of the settled proposition of law. The advertisement was given and, therefore, the contention that the applicants who had applied for permanent post of peon in the Fast Track Court should not have been considered for the temporary posts of Civil Court cannot be accepted in view of the settled proposition of law. Apart from that, it is, also, the settled proposition of law that mere making of applications creates no right which does not answer to the requirements of suitability and when there is vested right, such right cannot be upheld in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned Single Judge has confidered all facts and circumstances and elevant proposition of law and has rightly ejected the writ petition and we affirm the ame while dismissing this Letters Patent Appeal at the threshold. No costs.