JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners claim a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Munsif consequent to the requisition sent by the High Court for filling up of 155 posts on 10th of April, 2002. 3. The brief facts leading to the present petition is that an advertisement was published on 7th of October, 1991 inviting applications to fill up 245 posts of Munsifs. The petitioners are the candidates who applied for appointment in respect to such advertisement. 4. A merit-list of 539 successful candidates was prepared but the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others, A.I.R. 2000 Supreme Court 1296 quashed the reservation made for O.B.C. and all other categories excluding Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently all 245 posts were filled up from 539 successful candidates. The last candidate who has been appointed has obtained 566 marks whereas; the petitioners were lower in merit. Since they were not appointed, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment against 155 vacancies, the requisition for which was sent by the High Court when the process of appointment in pursuance of such advertisement was still in process. 5. In the counter affidavit, after giving history of the appointments from time to time it is averred that against the 245 posts for which requisition was sent in pursuance of 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination, 245 successful candidates have already been appointed in different allotments and phases. The names of the petitioners were not recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission as successful candidates. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was a requisition sent by this Court in respect of 155 posts; therefore, the petitioners have a right to seek appointment against such post for which requisition was sent. 7. It could not be pointed out that in pursuance of such requisition; any advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the judicial service. Though after the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination, different subsequent examination processes were held i.e. 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th Bihar Judicial Service Examination and candidates were appointed. 7. It could not be pointed out that in pursuance of such requisition; any advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the judicial service. Though after the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination, different subsequent examination processes were held i.e. 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th Bihar Judicial Service Examination and candidates were appointed. Therefore, on the basis of requisition once sent by the High Court, the petitioners cannot claim any right of appointment when no advertisement was issued and the candidates equal to the number of posts stand appointed in the selection process, in which the petitioners were candidates. 8. Still further, 245 advertised posts stand filled up. The petitioners are not meritorious candidates. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Kulwinder Pal Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 2281, the petitioners who are not in merit and are beyond advertised posts cannot claim right of appointment. 9. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ application. The same is dismissed.