JUDGEMENT 1. This batch of writ applications has been filed by persons who are seeking appointment on the post of Auxilliary Nurse Midwife (ANM for short) in the district of Bettiah. Advertisements were issued in the year 1995 and interviews were held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.1995. The results were declared and 75 candidates in the general category were appointed. In the year 1998, 19 candidates were terminated from services on the ground that they had produced forged documents at the time of their appointments. 2. The petitioners moved this Court by filing several writ applications. The order of one of the writ applications being CWJC No. 8594 of 1999 is at Annexure-8 of CWJC No. 8411 of 2004. The argument made on behalf of the petitioners was that they were high up in the panel and if these 19 candidates were not appointed, the petitioners would have been selected for the post of ANM. In the first round of litigation, the State rejected the plea of the petitioners on the ground that in the year 1996, new rules had come into existence, which envisages that the appointments would be done through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Court considered this aspect and held that if the appointments were done against the advertisement issued in the year 1995, the authorities concerned could not have applied the 1996 rules to disqualify the petitioners for consideration for the post of ANM. This Court after observing as above remitted the matter back for consideration to the Director- in-chief, Health Services. 3. The Director-in-chief by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit dated 09.09.2004, rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the vacancies with respect to the 19 posts arose in the year 1998, when it was discovered that the 19 candidates had produced forged documents and as such the petitioners would not be entitled for consideration and the new rules of 1996 would apply in their cases. 4. This Court finds that whatever be the reasoning of the Director-in-chief, Health Services, the petitioners would not be entitled to be considered for appointments on the 19 vacancies of the 1995 panel. The appointments made against the advertisement issued on 15.07.1995 came to an end, appointments were made, persons joined their respective places of postings and the panel would obviously lapse after one year. The appointments made against the advertisement issued on 15.07.1995 came to an end, appointments were made, persons joined their respective places of postings and the panel would obviously lapse after one year. The vacancy occurred when the authorities found that forged documents had been submitted by 19 candidates to obtain appointments for the post of ANM. It would lead to complete chaos if this Court permitted those vacancies to be filled up from the panel of 1995, as vacancies obviously occurred in the year 1998. To illustrate the point, there can be a case, when the authorities may discover that the appointments made in the year 1995, were illegal, for the reason that forged documents had been submitted at the time of appointments. The discovery could have been made at any point of time, for example, it could have been made in the year 2010. Such vacancies would be vacancies of the year 1995, but would have to be filled when the State next decides to advertise the post. Persons of the penal of 1995 cannot claim as a matter of right for being appointed in 1998 or 2010 against the vacancy which occur in the facts stated aforesaid. They may have been considered if the vacancy occurred due to non-joining of persons in 1995, provided an application was made within reasonable time. Fresh advertisement according to the current rules will have to be made to fill such vacancies. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, I find that the petitioners cannot claim appointments on the basis of the advertisement issued on 15.07.1995. These writ applications are thus dismissed.