JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned AAG-IV for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. These two petitioners are before this Court challenging the action of the respondents-State to fill up the posts of Sub-Inspector in Bihar Police beyond the number of advertised posts which is Annexure-2 to the writ application. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are eligible graduates having hope in their heart and determination to enter the service of Bihar Police in future provided the vacancies remain for their recruitment. By expanding the number of vacancies to be filled up beyond the advertisement, the State authorities are killing their future prospect of recruitment and break in the service. He submits that the law is quite settled on this issue that generally appointments are to be made and the posts filled up in consonance with the advertisement and no recruitment can be made beyond the advertised posts. If there is deviation made by the respondents, they have right to challenge the said action before the Court. They want an order of restraint upon the respondents to fill up the posts beyond the number of advertisement. 4. In a normal course of things such a challenge could have been considered by this Court and the validity of such exercise scrutinized on the legal side. But in the given case keeping in mind the past litigations with regard to filling up the posts of Sub-Inspector the Court is not inclined to entertain such a request. Many a litigations have been filed challenging the recruitment process including the examination held for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Bihar and these posts have not been filled up for years together. After much exercise and a decision rendered in the case of Jai Shanker Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar along with other analogous cases reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 825 a final list of selected candidates has been prepared and they have been asked to join by 11th February, 2009 as has been pointed out to this Court by learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned Advocate General relies on paragraph 7 of the said decision as to the reason and the background under which more recruitments are being sought to be made beyond the initial advertisement contained in Annexure-2. 5. Learned Advocate General relies on paragraph 7 of the said decision as to the reason and the background under which more recruitments are being sought to be made beyond the initial advertisement contained in Annexure-2. It is the same contention which is even made today before this Court. There seems to be rationality in the said submission and the Court has no reason to dispel the said submission in the present litigation because it is not an innovation of the State at this stage but a consistent stand in this regard. In paragraph-7 of the order passed in Jai Shankar Prasad (supra) states as follows:- Paragraph-7. "Learned Advocate General next submitted that the respondents were conscious of the undue hardship to be caused to the 160 candidates now to be removed from the list of successful candidates. Many of them may have given up their previous jobs or left other offers in favour of the present. Additionally the issue arises with regard to those who have secured more marks than these 160 persons sought to be reconsidered, quantified to be approximately 271 making a total of 431 candidates. Additionally two seats of the reserved category of women also became available due to quota reduction. Thus making a total of 433 candidates. Relying on (1997) 8 SCC 488 (Surendra Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Punjab & Another) he submits that the present was a rare and exceptional circumstance and an emergent situation considering that no recruitment had been done for a decade affecting policing in the State when the State proposes to deviate from established principles of appointment confined to vacancies specified in the advertisement as a matter of policy decision." 6. The Court is of the opinion that the present writ application is a motivated piece of litigation with a view to somehow derail the selection process and appointment to which this Court does not find any substance. 7. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.