Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, a candidate for appointment as Driver Constable under Adv. no. 1/09 from General Non-Home Guard Category, could not be appointed despite scoring cut-off marks of 40, earmarked for the same category as some person elder in age was recommended as per rules governing cases of tie. As per information provided under R.T.I through letter no. 219 dated 9th January, 2013 by Sergeant Major, 1st, Police Centre, Ranchi, in General Non-Home Guard Category, there were 33 vacant posts and 31 persons submitted their joining. A total number of 200 posts were advertised for recruitment of Driver Constable under Jharkhand Jaguar and Ranchi District Force. As per same information under R.T.I., 2 posts in Non-Home Guard General Category remained vacant. The panel was prepared under the said recruitment exercise on 14th April, 2012 which is a part of the Interlocutory Application no. 2485 of 2015 obtained under RTI. It is true that no second merit-list was published within a period of 6 2. months as per the provisions of Rule 663(d) of Police Manual and also the Notification no. 330 dated 12th December, 2001. Petitioner therefore came aggrieved before this Court by way of instant writ petition preferred on 23rd March, 2013 i.e., within one year period of preparation of panel claiming that the respondents should be directed to fill up the remaining vacancies of Driver Constable and appoint him as such as he was a successful candidate in all examinations, test etc. 3. On a previous date, the respondents were specifically asked to reply as to whether any final decision in the matter of closure of selection process for appointment of Driver Constables under the same Adv. no. 1/09 have been taken or whether any decision has been taken to declare the second merit-list to fill up unfilled vacancies under the said advertisement. The Senior Superintendent of Police had sought guidelines as per Annexure-B letter dated 20th March, 2013 from the Police Headquarter. 4. After few adjournments Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed yesterday, which, inter alia, states that in terms of Rule 663 (Gha) of Police Manual and Police Order no. 6/2003 and Notification no. 3300 dated 12th December, 2001 after publication of first list, it has been provided that within 6 months of the same all vacancies are required to be filled up. 6/2003 and Notification no. 3300 dated 12th December, 2001 after publication of first list, it has been provided that within 6 months of the same all vacancies are required to be filled up. It is also stated at paragraph no. 8 of the same affidavit that vide Memo no. 89/TS dated 29th April, 2015, the Police Headquarter has intimated to all concerned Deputy Inspector General of Police of State of Jharkhand to take appropriate action in their respective districts in relation to appointment of Driver Constable. Based upon the aforesaid assertion, it is also submitted that a fresh process has been directed to be initiated for the appointment of Constable Driver, in view of the excess vacant posts and newly created posts of Constable Driver. Supporting documents have been enclosed to the said affidavit being correspondences in this regard. 5. In the aforesaid background of relevant material facts pleaded, it is the submission of counsel for petitioner that the respondents did not apply themselves to the issue, at hand, despite vacancies existing and if at all there was a requirement of issuance of second merit-list, that was not undertaken within a period of 6 months. It is submitted that petitioner is in the panel of candidates and also has the same cut-off marks of 40 in General Non-Home Guard Category and if vacancies remained unfilled after issuance of call letters to such candidates, the respondent-department was under an obligation to undertake exercise with proper application of mind to ensure that remaining vacancies are filled up, may be within the cut-off marks notified, if no second merit-list was required to be issued. It is submitted that such approach on the part of the respondent is an abdication of the statutory and administrative responsibilities. Therefore, if no fresh exercise for recruitment has been undertaken till issuance of letter dated 29th April, 2015, then petitioner's case should be considered by the respondents against the vacancies admittedly remaining, from candidate like the petitioner having same cut-off marks. The whole exercise of selection and recruitment undertaken after long intervals would stand defeated if such conscious application of mind is not undertaken by the respondents. It is submitted that the cause of action of the petitioner was well within time as the panel could not be said to have been lapsed by the time petitioner approached this Court. 6. The whole exercise of selection and recruitment undertaken after long intervals would stand defeated if such conscious application of mind is not undertaken by the respondents. It is submitted that the cause of action of the petitioner was well within time as the panel could not be said to have been lapsed by the time petitioner approached this Court. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that in terms of relevant Rule 663(d) and notification of 2001, any unfilled vacancies were required to be taken up only if second merit-list was issued that too within a period of 6 months, as there is a mandate that the process should have been completed within a period of 6 months. It would be deemed that the selection process came to an end upon expiry of 6 months. It is further submitted that merely being on panel does not confer a legal right to the petitioner to be appointed as he is not able to show that anyone having lesser marks has been appointed against the said exercise. It is also submitted that a fresh selection exercise process has been initiated. Therefore, the remaining vacancies along with those created thereafter are required to be filled-up in the fresh recruitment exercise. 7. I have considered the rival submission of the parties in the factual matrix of the case pleaded and noticed hereinabove. I have also given anxious thought to the legal issue involved herein. It goes without saying that mere presence of the name of the persons on a panel does not confer a legal right upon such a candidate to claim appointment unless it is shown that anyone having lesser marks has been appointed or there is a statutory mandate to fill up the vacancies notified. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. On the other hand, it can also be lost sight of that there is an obligation mandated under the relevant Police Manual as also Notification relied upon by the respondents themselves to fill up the vacancy within the stipulated period of 6 months. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. On the other hand, it can also be lost sight of that there is an obligation mandated under the relevant Police Manual as also Notification relied upon by the respondents themselves to fill up the vacancy within the stipulated period of 6 months. ^^¼13½ izrh{kk lwph % iqfyl gLrd fu;e&663 ¼Mh½ ds vuqlkj dksbZ izrh{kk lwph ugha cukbZ tkuh gSA izFke lwph fuxZr djus ds mijkUr ;fn foKkfir fjfDr;k¡ ugha Hkjh tk lds] rks ml ifjfLFkfr esa foKkfir fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus ds fy;s lesfdr ojh;rk lwph ds izFke es/kk lwph esa vfUre p;fur mEehnokj ds uhps ls] mlh dze esa] f}rh; es/kk lwph] fjfDr;ksa ds vuqlkj cukbZ tk;sxhA izFke lwph fuxZr gksus ds N% ekg ds vUnj lHkh izdkf'kr fjfDr;k¡ fuf'pr :i ls Hkj nh tk;sxhA^^ 8. The ratio laid down in this regard is well settled in a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 S.C.C 47 . Para 7 thereof is quoted hereunder: “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.” 9. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.” 9. In the instant case, the vacancies notified required fixation of cut-off marks 40 in the case of General Non-Home Guard Category. It is also noticeable that petitioner was holding the same cut-off marks 40 which was the marks held by last selected candidate i.e., Ramjivan Singh, who being senior in age was called for to appear with all his relevant certificates for scrutiny and issuance of appointment letter thereafter. It appears that few candidates may not have submitted joining or may have failed in the scrutiny process and 2 vacancies remained in the said category. These vacancies apparently remained within 6 months period from the issuance of panel. The respondents however did not choose to make any conscious application of mind to fill-up the remaining vacancies from those persons at least who were on the cut off marks in the same panel. The present petitioner cannot be accused of having approached this Court with delay in raising his cause of action as the writ petition was filed in March, 2013 itself within one year of publication of panel on 14th April, 2012. Employment these days is a rare commodity and every unemployed eligible person has a genuine interest and hope to be considered for such appointment. Petitioner in this case is within cut-off marks and the vacancies remained unfilled also. Since it is a case where it is found that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the respondents in filling-up the remaining vacancies within stipulated period of 6 months from a panel existing and on which persons like the petitioner were having the same cut-off marks and that no further recruitment exercise was undertaken till issuance of letter dated 29th April, 2015, it would only be proper and in the interest of justice that the respondents accord due consideration in accordance with law to the case of the petitioner along with any other eligible candidate on the said panel against the 2 remaining vacancies existing in General Non-Home Guard Category under the said recruitment exercise for the post of Driver Constable. This is in no way would inhibit the respondents from undertaking the recruitment exercise underway afresh in respect of all those vacancies which have occurred thereafter. Let such consideration be undertaken within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The competent authority/ respondent no.5 would take a considered decision in respect of the petitioner in accordance with law within the aforesaid time. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A. is also closed.