JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties 2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order dated 14th of March, 2014 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18601 of 2012 which was dismissed along with analogous cases. 3. The appellants were the applicants for 1059 posts of Pharmacist advertised on 25th of January, 2000. But subsequently the State of Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar and the number of vacancies which were to be filled up stands reduced to 771 in State of Bihar. Out of 771, 325 vacancies fall to the General Category. The appellants are General Category Candidates. It is admitted that all General Category vacancies stand filled up. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Bench on merits but argues that even after appointment of 325 candidates, there are still large number of vacancies which should be directed to be filled up from amongst the candidates who responded to the advertisement published on 25th of January, 2000. 5. We do not find any merit in the said claim. Mere fact that at one point of time the appellants were candidates for the post of Pharmacist and were not selected will not confer any right to seek consideration for appointment after the posts advertised stand filled up. The appellants are not even in the select list. Somewhat similar question in respect of the candidates in the select list was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Kulwinder Pal Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2016 SC 2281 . It has been held that such candidates have no right to seek appointment. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:- “18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been pursuing the matter for about eight years and even today there are vacancies in Punjab Judicial Service and thus prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the appellants as against the existing vacancies. This contention does not merit acceptance. Appointment to an additional post or to existing vacancies would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the post on the date of submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement but became eligible for appointment thereafter. This contention does not merit acceptance. Appointment to an additional post or to existing vacancies would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the post on the date of submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement but became eligible for appointment thereafter. After referring to Rakhi Ray, Rajkishore Nanda and other decisions, High Court rightly held that the candidates much more than the vacancies advertised have already been permitted to join and thus the appellants cannot claim any legal right in respect of the posts of reserved category remaining unfilled. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 6. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any merit in the argument raised that the existing vacancies should be directed to be filled up from amongst the candidates who applied more than 16 years back. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed.