Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants were party in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2489 of 1994 as petitioner no. 5 and 7. The appellants' said S.L.P was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20th November, 1997. The operative part of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under: “Although the appellants had not been appointed by following the due procedure and, therefore, they cannot claim regularization as a matter of course but considering the fact that they had satisfactorily served the department even without getting any salary for a long time and they were not guilty of any fraud or sharp practice and also did not lack in requisite qualification and they had been appointed against sanctioned posts, we feel that the appellants deserve sympathetic consideration in getting appointment against such sanctioned posts on humane consideration. Considering the special facts of this appeal it appears to us that it will be just and proper consistent with ends of justice to direct that 50 per cent of the sanctioned posts which were held by these appellants should be filled from amongst the appellants on the basis of their inter se merit position by taking into account their academic qualifications by waiving question of age bar if any and usual procedures for such appointment. The remaining 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts, will be filled up on regular basis by throwing it open to the members of the pubic and following the procedure prescribed for such appointment in the State of Bihar. The remaining appellants who will not be absorbed against 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts will be entitled to compete for appointment in the balance 50 per cent posts along with other eligible candidates but they will not be treated unsuitable on account of age bar. On the contrary, in the matter of assessment of merit they will be given a credit of 25 per cent marks for the experience they have gained for services rendered by them for the said long period of 5 years or more. These directions are given on consideration of the special facts of this case and this order being confined to the special facts of this case is not to be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order, as to costs. These directions are given on consideration of the special facts of this case and this order being confined to the special facts of this case is not to be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order, as to costs. We reasonably expect that the concerned authorities will make the exercise as early as practicable for filling up the vacant sanctioned posts preferably within a period of six months from today.” 3. It is clear from the above order that Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appellants were not appointed by following due procedure and therefore, they cannot claim for regularization as a matter of course. However, considering the fact that appellants of that case satisfactorily served the department even without getting any salary for a long time and they were not guilty of any fraud and also did not lack in requisite qualification and they have been appointed against the sanctioned posts, therefore, above order was passed that too directing the respondents that 50 per cent of the sanctioned posts which has been held by the appellants should be filled from amongst the appellants on basis of their inter se merit position by taking into account their academic qualifications by waiving question of age bar if any. The remaining 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts, will be filled up on regular basis by throwing it open to the members of the public and following the procedure prescribed for such appointment in the State of Bihar. The remaining appellants, obviously who could not have been absorbed against above referred 50 per cent posts were allowed to compete with other for appointment on 50 per cent posts. 4. Petitioner, if was entitled to get benefit of said judgment in the year 1997, after delay of 13 years, in the year 2010 cannot claim that he was entitled to absorption against 50 per cent of the sanctioned post of the year 1997 and he be given job and be regularized. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner submitted various representations but his case was not considered. If it is so even then this will not explain the delay of almost now of more than 13 years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner submitted various representations but his case was not considered. If it is so even then this will not explain the delay of almost now of more than 13 years. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in other writ petitions; W.P.(S) No. 5513 of 2004 and W.P.S. No. 736 of 2010, the reliefs have been granted to some of the employees by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It appears from the above orders that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment has not been considered in the light of the observations made by us above and this fact cannot be ignored that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed specifically to fill up the 50 per cent of the posts from the persons who were holding the post and directed to absorb/regularize those persons only on the 50 per cent posts. The remaining 50 per cent posts were declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be offered to open market wherein only right to the petitioner as well as the parties to the said S.L.P to compete with other persons. This process cannot now claimed by the writ petitioner who was party in the S.L.P. 6. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. Hence, the L.P.A having no merit is dismissed.