ORDER : 1. Seeking appointment on a Class-IV post, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age limit and persons senior to him in the merit-list only were appointed, now has approached this Court with a specific case that persons below in the merit-list and even senior in age to him have been appointed and the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 22 and 27 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondent-State. 4. The petitioner and few other candidates came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6669 of 2006 with a grievance that persons below them were appointed. By an order dated 05.07.2007 the writ petition stood disposed of. The writ Court was of the view that if further requirement for Class-IV employees is received by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6669 of 2006 shall be considered. A Contempt Case (Civil) No. 359 of 2008 was preferred by the applicants in W.P.(S) No. 6669 of 2006. Order dated 09.12.2011 whereby the contempt proceeding was dropped would indicate that taking note of the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner who was applicant No.4 in W.P.(S) No. 6669 of 2006, a liberty was granted to him to approach the appropriate forum. Taking benefit of the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed. At this stage, it needs to be indicated that the claim of the applicants in W.P.(S) No. 6669 of 2006 which is reflected in the opening paragraph of order dated 05.07.2007, “Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that other persons whose names appear below in the District Panel have been appointed but the petitioners have not been appointed”, did not find favour with the writ Court and the writ petition stood disposed of in the following terms: “In view of the stand taken by Mrs. Choudhari, the only order which can be passed is that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag will seek requirements from other Departments, and if any requirement is received, recommended the names from the District Panel as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 5. Choudhari, the only order which can be passed is that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag will seek requirements from other Departments, and if any requirement is received, recommended the names from the District Panel as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 5. The objection taken on behalf of the petitioner that persons below in merit-list and senior in age to him have been appointed was not conclusively decided by the contempt Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the stand taken by the respondent-State in the counter-affidavit, from which it would appear that the aforesaid stand of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent-State. The petitioner has produced the appointment letters of the other four persons who are below in merit-list and older in age. In that view of the matter by an order dated 17.10.2016, the respondent no. 3 was directed to file an affidavit, who has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 18.01.2017. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.3 has pleaded that appointment of the other persons who appear to be below in the merit-list has been made pursuant to a direction issued by this Court. In the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 18.01.2017, a detailed list of the number of vacancies before approval of the roster, after approval of the roster and the category of the candidates in the merit-list from serial nos. 40 to 333 have been disclosed. In this supplementary counter-affidavit the respondent no.3 has pleaded as under : “18. That it is stated and submitted that after appointing 12 candidates seniority wise and 1category wise (taking ST-03, SC-04, OBC-05) out of 19 recommended candidates the name of remaining 07 candidates that is Gen-02, OBC-01, SC-04 were sent back (including petitioner Rupak Kumar Mahajan) to District Nazarat. It is further stated that after appointment of 12 candidates, details of vacancy of the RDDE office, Hazaribag is as follows : Category Total vacancy after approval of roster Filled Vacanacy Unfilled Vacancy OBC 05 05 0 S C 04 04 0 ST 10 03 07 t otal 19 12 07 It is pertinent to mention here that RDDE, Hazaribag sent back names of 07 candidates (02-Gen, 01-OBC, 04-SC) and in lieu of these, names of 7 ST candidates were demanded for filling unfilled vacancy under the ST category. 19. That it is stated and humbly submitted that now it is necessary to clarify here that although 05-OBC candidates were recommended through letter no. 16/naz. dated 12.01.2006 against 05 vacant post of OBC and accordingly RDDE, Hazaribag appointed 05 Candidates under OBC category but, the petitioner who belongs to OBC candidate could not be appointed because, 01 candidate namely Shivnandan Saw placed at Sl. 150 (who belongs to OBC Category but short-listed and recommended under UR Category), was appointed under OBC Category being Senior to the petitioner since, there was no vacancy of UR Category available now (as per letter no. 375 dated 25.03.2006, annexure-E) and hence, the petitioner Rupak Kumar Mahajan could not be appointed.” 7. Besides the above, while considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment, one thing which needs to be kept in mind is that the advertisement was issued on 24.04.2002 and a panel of eligible candidates was prepared on 22.08.2005. The petitioner is claiming appointment on the basis of his seniority in the merit-list prepared on 22.08.2005. Twelve years after the panel was prepared, I am not inclined to issue a direction for appointment of the petitioner from the said panel. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.