MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-State. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the Advertisement dated 24.07.2013 made for appointment by way of regularization in the district of Araria. The petitioners were aggrieved by their exclusion on grounds of the educational qualification prescribed in the said advertisement which required a candidate to be at least Matriculate for the purposes of consideration. Other than challenging the Advertisement on this ground, petitioners have also challenged the selections made thereunder by raising various instances of persons who were appointed without having the requisite qualification, or on the basis of false certificates in support of their candidature. 3. In respect of this aspect of the matter, the respondents have specifically averred in the pleadings in their supplementary counter affidavit that the process of selection had to be rushed in view of certain orders passed in a contempt proceedings arising out of MJC No 4343 of 2012 as a result of which the final panel was prepared within the time limit stipulated by this Court. It is their submission that in view of the hurried manner in which the process was completed, a conscious decision has been taken to subject the candidature of all the persons to post appointment verification. It is their admitted case that if the qualifications or claim of any of the candidates found false, suitable actions will be taken against the erring candidates. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of four years having been lapsed, no action has been taken against the erring candidates though specific instance has been given in the pleadings by the writ petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that process is going on. First information report has been instituted against some persons and regarding others, logical conclusion would be arrived expeditiously. This Court does not find any reason to doubt the intention of the respondents. 6. The other aspect, which has been highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is that the respondents, in their counter affidavit filed in the instant proceeding, have taken a specific stand as follows:— “That the assertion made in paragraph 15 of the IA is denied. The onus lies on the petitioners to prove that they are working since 1991-92. The onus lies on the petitioners to prove that they are working since 1991-92. If they prove that they have worked continuously for ten years or more, necessary steps shall be taken for their regularization keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1.” 7. He submits that the petitioners will make their representation in light of the specific stand of the State Government as placed on record in the instant proceedings. 8. This Court would only observe that since the respondents themselves have taken a stand, as recorded hereinabove, if the petitioners make their representation within a period of eight weeks from today, the District Magistrate, Araria would consider the petitioners’ claim in terms of the specific assertions made in the instant proceeding expeditiously, and preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 9. Writ petition is disposed of.