ORDER This batch of writ applications involve common issue based on common facts and circumstances and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order. For the purpose of the present order, the facts have been taken from the pleadings of CWJC No. 395 of 2011. 2. The petitioners, in the present writ applications seek a direction to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), Patna to appoint them on the posts of Assistant, which were advertised vide an advertisement dated 06.11.2009 (annexure-4). By the said advertisement, applications were invited from the persons who retired as Section Officers/ Assistants. The appointment, pursuant to the said advertisement, was to be made on contract basis for the period of 11 months on payment of maximum amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The petitioners further seek a declaration from the court that the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009 was issued malafide with sole aim to frustrate the claims of the petitioners and others, who had applied earlier in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.09.1989, and were finally selected. The petitioners have further prayed for restraining the respondents from appointing the retired persons on contract basis in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009. 3. For the benefit of quick reference the relief prayed for in writ petition in paragraph 1 is being quoted hereinbelow:- “1. That the petitioners seek indulgence of this Hon’ble High Court for the following reliefs:- (A) A writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/s, direction commanding the Respondents for the following- (i) To appoint the petitioners against the vacancies Advertised by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Samiti, Patna, The respondent no.3 for appointment on the post of Assistant vide advertisement published in Dainik Jagran, a daily news paper published from Patna in its edition dated 6.11.2009 inviting applications from desirous retired persons for appointment on contract basis. (ii) To hold that the advertisement referred to above is malafide and with the sole aim of frustrating claims of the petitioners and others who had applied earlier in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 14.09.1989 in response to which after written test for appointment to the post of Assistant result was published on 31.3.1998 on the orders of Patna High Court passed in CWJC No. 3400 of 1996 but the same was dismissed ultimately on account raising a false stand of the Board that there was no need for appointment and for saving its skin from false stand taken by the Board in the aforesaid and other writ application of being caught hold of taking fraudulent and contemptuous stand. (iii) To restrain the Respondents from appointing retired persons on contract basis in pursuance to the Advertisement referred to above. (B) To any other relief/s to which the petitioners are found entitled to.” 4. I will deal with the facts leading to institution of the present writ applications later, which are relevant for disposal of the present batch of writ applications. At the outset, however, I think it apt to point out that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board stating in paragraph 4 that due to compelling circumstances, for disposal of the certain urgent work in the Board, the advertisement was published to engage 32 retired persons on contract basis but the said urgent work of the relevant period was completed even without engagement of any person on the basis of the said advertisement. It has specifically been stated that the engagement pursuant to the said advertisement was, thus, not done. In my opinion, therefore, the reliefs prayed for in paragraph 1(A)(i) and 1(A)(iii) of the writ petition have become infructuous. This is not in dispute that the advertisement dated 06.11.2009 (annexure-4), which is the very foundation and the reason for filing of the present writ applications, has not been acted upon nor it is going to be acted upon in future, in view of the stand of the Board in counter affidavit. 5. I will be dealing the other relief sought for by the writ petitioners as mentioned in paragraph 1(A)(ii) of the writ applications. 6. 5. I will be dealing the other relief sought for by the writ petitioners as mentioned in paragraph 1(A)(ii) of the writ applications. 6. Elaborate submissions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing writ applications including CWJC No. 3400/1996, which was dismissed by this court on account of false stand taken by the Board. The said writ petition arose out of an advertisement dated 14.09.1989 and result of written test on that basis, published on 31.03.1998. The said writ application was dismissed ultimately on account of false plea having been taken by the respondent- Board. 7. Certain facts are not in dispute. 8. The respondent- Board had earlier issued an advertisement dated 14.09.1989 inviting applications for appointment on various posts including the posts of Office Assistant, Accounts Assistant, Typist, Daftry, Peon besides Steno typist and Driver. The employees working on daily wage basis in the Board challenged the said advertisement by filing writ applications including CWJC No. 8440 of 1989 (Bhavesh Jha & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) seeking, inter alia, quashing of the said advertisement and their appointment on regular basis. A Division Bench of this court disposed of the writ application by an order dated 28.09.1989. By the said order, this court, while declining to quash the advertisement, directed the Board that while making regular appointment, candidature of daily wage employees may also be considered. The court also asked the Board to consider condoning age bar, if any. They are said to have offered their candidature for various posts. 9. Pursuant to the said advertisement dated 14.09.1989, a written test was held by the Board on 14.09.1993. Aggrieved by non publication of result, some of the applicants filed a writ application being CWJC No. 3400/1996 (Vinod Thakur vs. the Chairman Bihar School Examination Board & anr). This court by order dated 29.11.1996 directed the Board for publication of result. In the light of the said direction of this court, the Board published the result. The petitioners claim that they were declared successful in the written test. No appointments were, however, made on the basis of result so published. Several writ applications were filed before this court seeking direction to make appointment on the basis of result published by the Board. Many of such writ applications were dismissed. The petitioners claim that they were declared successful in the written test. No appointments were, however, made on the basis of result so published. Several writ applications were filed before this court seeking direction to make appointment on the basis of result published by the Board. Many of such writ applications were dismissed. However, one of the writ applications being CWJC No.750/1999, with analogous cases was referred for consideration by a Division Bench. It would appear from the order of Division Bench of this court passed in CWJC No. 750/1999 and other analogous cases dated 02.07.2008, which has been brought on record as annexure-1 to the writ applications, that the Board filed counter affidavit in those cases taking a stand that on account of decrease in work load, there was no requirement of further appointment of class-III and class-IV employees. It would appear that the Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ applications taking into account the stand of the Board making following observations:- “We do not find any substance in this submission and the decision relied on has no application in the facts of the present case. Here in the present case, after the advertisement was made, respondent- Board proceeded with the selection process. Advertisement to fill up the post is an invitation to qualified persons to apply for recruitment. Board later on for bona fide and appropriate reasons decided not to fill up the posts. It is well settled that an employer on valid grounds can refused to make appointment, even if the vacancy exists. Here, the reasons assigned by the respondents for not filling up the posts have been found to be bona fide and hence refusal to appoint the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal. It has lastly been contended that when this Court directed to publish the result of the candidates, who have appeared in the examination, it would mean that this Court intended to direct the respondent-Board to make appointment. We cannot read in the order of this Court what has not been stated while disposing of the writ application. It is relevant to state here that this Court directed the respondent-Board to publish the result of the test as the Board instead of publishing the result has come out with a fresh advertisement. Issuance of fresh advertisement implies that the Board needed to fill up the posts. It is relevant to state here that this Court directed the respondent-Board to publish the result of the test as the Board instead of publishing the result has come out with a fresh advertisement. Issuance of fresh advertisement implies that the Board needed to fill up the posts. In the background of the fact that there was no complaint in regard to the conduct of the examination and further in the face of fresh advertisement having been published to fill up the vacancies, this Court directed the respondent-Board to publish the result. The direction to publish the result, in our opinion, would not mean that they have to be appointed. Accordingly, we reject this contention of the petitioners.” 10. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred Special Leave to Appeals vide SLP (Civil) No(s) 22913-22916/2008 challenging the said Division Bench order of this court, which was dismissed by an order dated 26.09.2008. It further appears that Curative Petitions vide Curative Petition (C) Nos. 144-148/2009 and Review Petitions vide Review Petition (C) Nos. 330-333/2009 were also filed which too were dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2009. Thereafter, on 06.11.2009 the Board came out with an advertisement inviting applications from retired employees against 32 posts of Assistants on contract basis, as has been indicated above. 11. In the background of these facts, as noted above, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Board had taken an incorrect stand before this court as well as before the Supreme Court that the Board did not require persons for their appointment because of the decrease in the work. 12. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009 would demonstrate that the Board required the personnel for work and just to frustrate the petitioners’ claim for appointment on the basis of result, they had taken an incorrect stand that they did not require persons to be appointed on the basis of advertisement dated 14.09.1989. This is the background in which the present writ applications have been filed. 13. I. A. Nos. 1107/ 2014 and 1740/2014 have also been filed by the persons claiming to be similarly situated to the petitioners in present batch of the writ applications, seeking their impleadment in support of the writ applications. This is the background in which the present writ applications have been filed. 13. I. A. Nos. 1107/ 2014 and 1740/2014 have also been filed by the persons claiming to be similarly situated to the petitioners in present batch of the writ applications, seeking their impleadment in support of the writ applications. However, I am of the view that, if aggrieved, the petitioners of I.A. No. 1107/ 2014 and 1740/ 2014 could have filed separate writ applications. They cannot be allowed to intervene in the present writ applications in support of the writ applications. 14. I. A. Nos. 1107/ 2014 and 1740/ 2014 are, accordingly, rejected. 15. So far as the relief, prayed for on behalf of the petitioners that they should be appointed against the posts advertised vide advertisement dated 06.11.2009, they being successful candidates on the basis of test held pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.09.1989, in my view, has become infructuous as I have already noted hereinabove that said advertisement has not been acted upon nor is going to be acted upon. 16. The contention on behalf of the petitioners that the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009 discloses malafide on the part of the respondents with sole aim to frustrate the claim of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, in my view, is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Firstly, for the reason that it is admitted position that the said advertisement has not been acted upon. Secondly, on the basis of the said advertisement dated 06.11.2009, inviting applications for engaging retired employees for a period of 11 months for carrying out certain official work, it cannot be said that stand of the Board before this court itself was false. Thirdly, the Division Bench of this court categorically held in its order dated 02.07.2008 in CWJC No. 750/1999 and other analogous cases that an employer on valid grounds could refuse to make appointment, even if the vacancy existed. 17. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has vehemently attempted to persuade this court that the Board had requirement of hands and, therefore, the petitioners, who had been duly selected after following selection process, should have been appointed by the Board, accordingly. He has, however, not been able to convince this court that in fact vacancies exist in the Board. He has, however, not been able to convince this court that in fact vacancies exist in the Board. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board is right in his submission that the judgment and order of this court dated 02.07.2008 passed in CWJC No. 750/1999 and other analogous cases reached its finality after dismissal of the SLP and subsequent Curative Petitions/Review Petitions by the Supreme Court and no relief as sought for by these petitioners can be granted. 18. In my opinion, the matter arising out of advertisement dated 14.09.1989 came to be finally concluded by the Division Bench of this court and subsequent dismissal of SLPs, Curative Petitions and Review Petitions by the Supreme Court. 19. These writ applications are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. 20. In course of submission, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the Board intends to fill up the vacancies by absorbing persons who are working on daily wage basis/adhoc basis through back door method. 21. Before I part with, I must observe that the Board, while filing up the vacancies in future, must strictly adhere to the principles of fair selection process in tune with requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. My attention has been drawn to clause-ii of resolution of Education Department, Government of Bihar dated 12.07.2012, which is annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board in support of the submission that respondent Board intends to fill up vacancies by regularizing services of persons engaged through back door as daily wage employees in the Board. 23. I must observe, while concluding that action of the respondents should not be in breach of a Full Bench judgment of this court reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 964 (Ram Sevak Yadav vs. the State of Bihar), paragraph 43 of which reads thus:- “43. We therefore sum up our conclusions and answer the reference as follows:- (A) Uma Devi (supra) prohibits regularization of daily wage, casual, ad-hoc and temporary appointments, the period of service being irrelevant; (B) An illegal appointment void ab-initio made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularized under any circumstances. We therefore sum up our conclusions and answer the reference as follows:- (A) Uma Devi (supra) prohibits regularization of daily wage, casual, ad-hoc and temporary appointments, the period of service being irrelevant; (B) An illegal appointment void ab-initio made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularized under any circumstances. (C) Irregular appointments can be regularized if the appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, it was made on a vacant sanctioned post, in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution with equal opportunity for participation to others eligible by competitive selection and the candidate possessed the eligibility qualifications for a regular appointment to the post. (D) The appointment must not have been an individual favour doled out to the appointee alone and the person must have continued in service for over ten years without intervention of any court orders.” With the observations, as above, these writ applications are dismissed.