Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for being appointed on the post of constable under the advertisement no. 03/2007 in the district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide annexure-1 advertisement notifying 454 posts containing all categories i.e. unreserved, scheduled tribes, schedules castes and other backward classes. Petitioner has scored 18 points and his name appeared at serial no. 1781 in the joint merit list of candidates successful in all tests (non home guard category). He however was not appointed and he has approached this Court in the present writ application in the year 2013 with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to fill up the remaining 64 posts notified under the advertisement no. 03/2007 as they had remained vacant in the district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. He has also made a prayer not to club 64 posts in advertisement no. 01/2010. 3. The petitioner obtained an information under the RTI vide annexure-5 Memo No. 2433 dated 01.07.2013 indicating that the said 64 posts out of the total advertised post of 454 had remained unfilled. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he has the reason to move this Court with the aforesaid prayer. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment dated 29.04.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Pashupati Kumar vs. State of Bihar & others in CWJC No. 126/2013 in respect of the contention that the unfilled vacancies of the previous advertisement should be filled up from amongst the successful candidates of such vacancies and not be added to the subsequent advertisement issued for such recruitment of constables. 4. State respondents appear to have filed a counter affidavit taking a plea that the petitioner scored 18 points under the said recruitment exercise which is less than the cut-off 20 points scored by the successful candidates. Therefore, he should not be selected for the post of constable in the non-home guard category. 5. The grievance of the petitioner, as made out from the pleadings on record and the stand of the respondents as reflected in their counter affidavit, shows that out of 454 vacancies notified under the advertisement no. 03/2007, 64 which were unfilled, were added to the vacancies notified under the advertisement no. 01/2010. Perusal of annexure-5 an information under the RTI shows that appointment against the vacancies notified under the advertisement no. 03/2007, 64 which were unfilled, were added to the vacancies notified under the advertisement no. 01/2010. Perusal of annexure-5 an information under the RTI shows that appointment against the vacancies notified under the advertisement no. 01/2010 including 64 vacancies have already been completed. It further appears that the petitioner had scored 18 points while the last selected candidates even in the second merit list in the general category, got 20 points and his date of birth is 01.10.1982 compared to the petitioner's date of birth as 05.01.1987. The petitioner in the first place, even on his non-selection under the advertisement of 2007, has chosen to raise such a grievance for non-clubbing of vacancies of the advertisement no. 03/2007 after the delay of seven years when the said vacancies also appear to have been filled up by the subsequent recruitment exercise of 2010 for the post of constable. Even reckoning the period from issuance of second merit list in 2009, the grievance raised by the petitioner is belated by four years and in the interregnum, such vacancies have been filled up. From perusal of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Pashupati Kumar (Supra), it would appear that there was a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 831/2009 dated 20.06.2011 which had observed that the State without ascertaining the exact number of vacancies in the previous advertisement of 2004, had proceeded to undertake the recruitment exercise which was again followed up by another recruitment exercise under the advertisement issued in 2009 without ascertaining the number of remaining vacancies. In such circumstances, the Division Bench had issued a direction upon the respondent officials of the State to ascertain the exact number of vacancies available on the date of the advertisement of 2004 and prepare a fresh merit list of candidates who were declared eligible after the regular recruitment process and the same be considered in accordance with rules. This exercise was to be completed within a period of six months. This exercise was to be completed within a period of six months. In view of such directions passed by the learned Division Bench, the learned Single Judge in the case of Pashupati Kumar (Supra) which raised a grievance of unfilled posts under the advertisement of 2004, was inclined to issue certain directions though it was specifically observed at para-14 that such a claim in respect of an advertisement of 2004 completed in 2006 was wholly belated and they should not be allowed to question the selection after lapse of eight to nine years to wreck a settled event. In view of the intervening judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, the learned Single Judge was persuaded to issue certain direction for filling up the remaining vacant posts of constable within the time stipulated. 6. In the present case, facts are distinguishable as the petitioner himself has raised such cause of action after much delay and latches in which rights of third party had become settled because 64 vacancies of the advertisement of 2007 have been filled up in the subsequent recruitment exercise of 2010. The petitioner otherwise has also not been able to show any candidate who has scored less marks than him, was appointed under the said advertisement. In the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons indicated herein-above, the writ petition has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed.