ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA) The present appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 05.07.2012, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application filed by the writ petitioners giving liberty to them to apply pursuant to the fresh advertisement issued, on 10.04.2010, for appointment to the posts of Kishan Salahkar, i.e., Agriculture Advisor. 2. The writ application emanated from the advertisement, dated 10.04.2010, aforementioned, published in the daily newspaper Aaj, calling for applications for appointment, on contractual basis, on the post of Kishan Salahkar, for the period 2010-2011. 3. Pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement, the writ petitioners applied. A select list of successful candidates was published, on 28.05.2011, which also contained the waiting list of 25 candidates of all categories, including the writ petitioners. 4. Being of the view that since 25 posts of Kishan Salahkar were lying vacant, the District Agriculture Officer, Siwan, would be making appointments from the waiting list on vacant sanctioned posts, the writ petitioners kept waiting issuance of appointment letters. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioners arose on the issuance of the letter No. 5592, dated 04.08.2011, whereby a direction was issued by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, that further appointments would be made only after fresh advertisements were made and vide letter, dated 29.08.2011, the District Agriculture Officer, Siwan, cancelled the waiting list. The writ petitioners filed representations before the concerned authorities and also the Minister, but the same were ignored. It is in this background that the writ petitioners approached this Court for, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to make appointments in their favour. 6. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the writ petition, did not find any merit in the application and, accordingly, dismissed the same granting, however, liberty to the petitioners to apply pursuant to the fresh advertisement, dated 10.04.2010, aforementioned. 7. Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.07.2012, passed in CWJC No. 8841 of 2012, the writ petitioners-appellants have preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge, is a non-speaking order inasmuch as the learned single Judge failed to consider the grounds raised by the writ petitioners in support of the case. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 9. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 9. The submission, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, before us is that even if fresh advertisement had been issued, the writ petitioners-appellants, being part of the waiting list, contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, were entitled to be appointed, on contractual basis, to those posts of Kishan Salahkar, which were lying vacant. The contention, advanced by the appellants, is that even if the advertisement had already been issued, inviting applications for appointment, on contractual basis, on the posts of Kishan Salahkar, for the period 2011-2012, sanctioned posts, being available for the period 2010-2011, the case of the writ-petitioners could well have been considered for appointment. It is urged, on behalf of the appellants, that the learned Single Judge should have had held that appointments of the appellants had been delayed on account of latches on the part of the respondent authorities and, hence, the writ-petitioners ought not to be made to suffer. Lastly, it is urged, on behalf of the writ petitioners, that out of the waiting list, two persons had been appointed, in the year 2011, whereas the writ petitioners’ cases had been ignored, though this amounted to discrimination and, thus, warranted interference by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In order to ascertain the rights of the parties, this Court has, first, perused the advertisement, on 10.04.2010, published, inviting applications for appointment, on contractual basis, to the posts of Kishan Salahkar (Agriculture Advisor). A perusal of this advertisement clearly demonstrates that the selection of Kishan Salahkar was to be purely contractual in nature and the contractual appointment was to be made for a period of one year. It was clearly stated, in the advertisement itself, that the selection would be made for the year 2010-11 and, on their satisfactory performance, the said period, on contractual period, would be extended. 11. It is further apparent from the advertisement that a fixed time frame had been chalked out for giving effect to the said advertisement. 12. It transpires from the pleadings of the writ petitioners that vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, a waiting list was prepared; but it is not clear as to when the same was issued. 13. 11. It is further apparent from the advertisement that a fixed time frame had been chalked out for giving effect to the said advertisement. 12. It transpires from the pleadings of the writ petitioners that vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, a waiting list was prepared; but it is not clear as to when the same was issued. 13. A perusal of Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition clearly reveals that the District Agriculture Officer, under instructions from the Department of Agriculture, stated that fresh advertisement, for appointments, would be made for the year 2011-12 and, consequently, the waiting list, prepared pursuant to the advertisement for the year 2010-11, was cancelled. In the wake of such a decision by the authorities concerned, the writ petitioners could have well availed and participated in the later advertisement inasmuch as the former advertisement, issued in the year 2010, was for a limited period of 2010-11 and could not have been extended indefinitely. 14. This Court finds that the respondent authorities were well within their jurisdiction to issue a fresh advertisement for contractual appointment, on the post of Kishan Salahkar by issuing fresh advertisement for the period 2011-12. The learned single Judge, having noticed that fresh advertisement had already been issued by the respondents, dismissed the writ application. The waiting list, by no stretch of imagination, could have been acted upon once a fresh advertisement had been issued by the Department concerned. The learned single Judge, while taking note of the advertisement issued for the year 2011-2012, had given liberty to the writ petitioners to apply pursuant to the fresh advertisement. 15. Regarding the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners, it is well settled principle of law that a wrong committed cannot be perpetuated by issuance of a writ. Naturally, therefore, in the name of removing discrimination, a High Court could not have, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed appointments to be made on the basis of the waiting list, in question, when the waiting list had seized to be effective. 16. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, we find and hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal, thus, fails and stands accordingly dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.