JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. Heard Sri Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appellants are the unsuccessful writ petitioners whose writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 12128 of 2007 (Adya Sharma and others v. The State of Bihar and others) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2010. 3. We are informed that there are certain intervention applications whereby some of the writ petitioners, who could not prefer appeal, tried to intervene by filing the said intervention application. 4. The present dispute relates to an advertisement for recruitment of constables issued being Advertisement No. 01/1998. The learned Single Judge noted the facts as also the fact that the advertisement having been issued in the year 1998 and there being subsequent advertisements also for the post of constables, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to interfere after such a long time. 5. We have considered the matter, and, in our view, the learned Single Judge was correct. The advertisement was issued in the year 1998 and after a long drawn process the recruitment process came to an end. There were subsequent advertisements issued in the year 2004 and thereafter. Thus, to say that the vacancy that was of the year 1998, for which petitioners-appellants applied, their case should be now considered after 18 years of the advertisement, would not be proper nor advisable. Subsequent advertisements we have to presume, must have taken into account of vacancy that was there and if that be so then the petitioners-appellants cannot be given any relief in this proceeding. Moreover, if the learned counsel is correct in submitting that there were large scale wrongful appointments made to wrongfully occupy seats, that would otherwise have been available to the petitioners-appellants is correct, then in absence of the persons who were occupying seats which would be available to the petitioners and who as a consequence of any relief to be granted to the petitioners appellants would be dislodged. They become necessary parties, in absence thereof the writ petitions or for that matter this appeal from the writ proceedings is not maintainable. 6. For both the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.