Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Bihar Public Service Commisstion (BPSC). 2. Even according to corrigendum in respect of vacancies contained in Annexure-2 dated 14.11.1996 the number of vacancies for the Advertisement No. 2/ 1996 for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Prosecution Officer was only 246. The regular interviews were held between 16.6.1998 to 25.6.1998 in which petitioners also participated and thereafter they could not be appointed in view of the marks obtained by them and others. 3. The plea of the petitioners is that for some reason one candidate was allowed to be interviewed by the BPSC on 14.2.2004 and by that date, as per information available with the petitioners there were 128 further vacancies in the concerned post. Petitioners want a direction from this Court to treat the petitioners as selected candidates and to appoint them against subsequent vacancies which appear to be 128 in number. The plea is that vacancies available till the date of interview can be filled up on the basis of interview held. 4. To find out a cut-off date for filling up available vacancies is an exercise which can be undertaken by the employer only when the vacancies are not advertised. In this case the vacancies were already advertised as appears from the corrigendum also. Further, one or the other candidate may have to be interviewed after many years in order to rectify a mistake by the selecting authority but only on that account the vacancies available till such belated interview cannot be treated to be available to a particular set of candidates who applied long back and the transaction of interview for whom was also closed long back. The wholesome principle of Articles 14 and 16 also warrant that subsequent vacancies should be available to persons who became eligible later on and should not be given as a favour to applicants who might have applied several years back. A contrary practice would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. For the aforesaid reasons this Court finds no merit in these two writ petitions. Hence they are dismissed.