JUDGMENT : Seeking quashing of order dated 08.07.2014 by which the claim of the petitioners for reappointment has been rejected and also seeking a direction upon the respondent-State not to proceed further in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.04.2016, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that initially claim of the petitioners for regularization was declined taking a plea that there were no vacancies and now the respondent-State has come out with an advertisement for appointment of 100 Para Medical Workers under the National Leprosy Eradication Programme, which would demonstrate that the claim of the petitioners was illegally rejected and while so, they are entitled for reappointment. 4. Ms. Shruti Shrestha, the learned State counsel supporting the impugned order dated 08.07.2014, contends that on the basis of an alleged appointment letter which was issued in the year 1987 the petitioners, 30 years thereafter, cannot seek a direction for their reappointment. 5. Briefly stated, the petitioners are claiming that they had submitted their applications pursuant to an advertisement and they were selected for the post of Para Medical Workers under the State Leprosy Eradication Programme. They claim that a letter of appointment was issued to them in the year 1987. It appears that a notification was issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services on 24.04.1989 whereunder 467 persons were absorbed, however, the said notification was stayed on 02.05.1989. Aggrieved, a writ petition being CWJC No. 9738 of 1989 was filed in the Patna High Court. Since the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were not permitted to join, they preferred contempt case being MJC No. 970/1992, however, during pendency of contempt case, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar vide letter dated 10.08.1992 issued a direction to accept the joining of such persons. The petitioners claim that thereafter they were posted and paid salary, however, on 08.03.1999 their services were terminated. Series of litigations ensued thereafter. In the case of "Prem Chandra Tiwari and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others" [W.P.(S) No.3235 of 2011], the order of termination was quashed and the Court permitted the respondents to pass a fresh order after issuing show-cause notice to them. Similarly, in the case of "Imteyaz Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors." [W.P.(S) No.5196 of 2011], a liberty was given to the State to conduct further enquiry in the matter. Similarly, in the case of "Imteyaz Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors." [W.P.(S) No.5196 of 2011], a liberty was given to the State to conduct further enquiry in the matter. Thereafter, 10 persons including, Imteyaz Ahmad and Prem Chandra Tiwari were reappointed on 09.05.2011, however, the said order was also recalled. The order of the reappointment was passed by the Director-in-Chief who was to retire on 31.05.2011. Again, writ petitions were filed in which a direction was issued for taking a conscious decision in the matter. Consequently, a Committee was appointed which found that the previous appointment letters were issued without verifying the facts and appointments were made during the period when there was a complete ban on appointment. The Committee concluded that the appointments were illegally made. Now, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2014, the claim of Imteyaz Ahmad and others including, the petitioners has been rejected. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and the materials brought on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.07.2014. It needs to be recorded that the plea taken by the petitioners that in the previous proceeding their claim was rejected by suppressing the facts insofar as vacancies are concerned, cannot be accepted. Merely because in the year, 2016 an advertisement has been issued it would not be lead to an inference that in the year, 1987 there were vacant sanctioned posts on which the petitioners were appointed. Moreover, the State has taken a specific stand that there was a complete ban on appointment and thus, appointment of the petitioners and others was illegal. 7. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.