JUDGMENT : The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for appointment on the post of Police Constables/GD in Central Reserve Police Force in the district of Latehar. 2. An advertisement was floated for appointment of Police Constables/ GD of 2272 vacancies in BSF, CRPF, ITBP & SSB through special rally in 08 severally LWE affected district of Jharkhand for all categories. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners have applied for appointment of Constables/GD in the district of Latehar and petitioners were allotted roll numbers which are evident from the Admit Card issued to the petitioners. Petitioners appeared in the physical standard test, physical efficiency test, written test and medical test and after being declared successful in all the events, a merit list was prepared. In the merit list, the names of the petitioners figured for appointment on the post of Police Constables/GD. As the advertised seats were bifurcated in different categories, only 22 posts were reserved for ST category in the Latehar District. The cut-off marks for ST category was fixed at 66 and none of the petitioners have obtained the minimum fixed marks i.e. 66 marks and as such, no letter of appointment was given to them. Aggrieved by not being offered letter of appointed, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that as per advertisement there were altogether 284 seats in Latehar District for appointment on the post of Police Constables. The petitioners were duly qualified and have been declared successful in all the events. Even in the medical examination they have been found fit and as such, in that view of the matter that only 22 candidates have been appointed in ST category and some seats are still vacant, since out of 284 seats only 196 seats have been filed, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners, who have been declared successful in all the events including the medical examination. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and draws the attention of the Court towards para-10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced herein below:- “10. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and draws the attention of the Court towards para-10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced herein below:- “10. That it is further submitted and stated that as per point no. 12(4) of the advertisement it was brought to the notice of all the applicant that ‘declaring a candidate fit in medical examination will not be a guarantee for appointment as final selection is made in order of merit and limited to availability of vacancies in respective category.’ As such it is contended that though the petitioner qualified in every stage upto medical examination, but, due to less marks secured by them in written examination in comparison to other selected candidates of their own ST category, they could not find place in final merit and as such, debarred from selection process. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire recruitment process was conducted according to the Rules and Regulations of the Department as well as Government of India. 11. That with regard to the statements made at paras-6, 7, 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that the same are matter of records and as such, does not require specific comment. However, the contention of the petitioner at para-8 is misconceived because the petitioner could not obtained more marks than the selected candidate within their own ST Category and therefore, could not find place in the final merit list despite the vacancies available. Availability of the vacancies does not create a right for appointment dehors the merit.” Learned counsel further argued that admittedly there are vacancies which have not been filled-up but the petitioners, who have approached this Hon’ble Court, fall within the specific category of Schedule Tribe (ST). In the advertisement altogether 284 seats were advertised for appointment and out of 284 seats only 22 seats were reserved for ST categories. Out of 22 seats all 22 seats have already been filed up and as such, no vacancy exits in ST category. In the advertisement altogether 284 seats were advertised for appointment and out of 284 seats only 22 seats were reserved for ST categories. Out of 22 seats all 22 seats have already been filed up and as such, no vacancy exits in ST category. Learned counsel further argued that even if the vacancies are there, right has not accrued to the petitioners for getting appointment on the post of Police Constables, since they have not secured more marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates in ST category. It has further been submitted that entire recruitment process was in accordance with rules prescribed by the Govt. of India and it cannot be said that petitioners were not appointed though vacancies were there. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Police Constables. From perusal of the records and averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that altogether 286 seats were advertised for appointment on the post of Police Constables out of which 196 candidates have already been appointment and only 22 seats were reserved for ST candidates. The petitioners do not fall within the zone of consideration as they had secured less marks than the last selected candidates i.e. they could not secure 66 marks. Even one Ashish Oraon, who is one of the petitioners, has secured 66 marks but due to younger in age, his name could not find place in the final merit list, which is in consonance with the Clause 13(iii)(b) of the Advertisement. Accordingly, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that vacancies are still there and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment, is not acceptable to this Court. Merely because the petitioners have qualified, does not give them a right to be appointed. Advertisements were made in the year 2013 and results have already been declared and panel was prepared for appointment but the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016. No appointments can be made from a panel which has lapsed three years back. Merely because the petitioners have qualified, does not give them a right to be appointed. Advertisements were made in the year 2013 and results have already been declared and panel was prepared for appointment but the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016. No appointments can be made from a panel which has lapsed three years back. A panel can be considered alive only for a year as per the settled principles of law. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for interference in the writ petition. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in the instant writ petitions. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.