JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the representation of the petitioners for their appointment pursuant to an order of this Hon'ble Court has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to consider their case for appointment as the persons below the name of the petitioners have been given appointment on the Class-IV post in the Collectorate of the district of Hazaribagh. 2. All the petitioners are permanent resident of different villages in the district of Hazaribagh and they are local persons. All the petitioners are matriculate. Most of them belong to OBC and Backward Class except the petitioner No. 2 who comes within the general category. 3. It is stated that in compliance to the direction/order of this Hon'ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 1999(R) (Gopi Rabidas & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others), C.W.J.C. No.595 of 1999(R) (Binod Kumar & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 16 of 2001 (R) (Yashoda Devi & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others) and W.P.(S). No. 4490 of 2001 (Badri Ram & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh issued an Advertisement No. V.02/2002 through Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribagh seeking applications from the eligible candidates for preparation of panel for appointment on the vacant post of Class-IV employees in different Muffasil Offices of the district of Hazaribagh. 4. The petitioners fulfilled each and every condition mentioned in the said Advertisement. They are enrolled in the local Employment Exchange having Enrolment Card. They are Matriculates. They have knowledge of cycling and they also fulfilled the age criterion laid down in the Advertisement. They applied for Class-IV post in terms of the Advertisement. 5. After having found all the applications of the petitioners in conformity with the Advertisement, the concerned authority issued Admit Card to the petitioners to appear in a written test scheduled to be held on 26.12.2004. They had been allotted to following Roll numbers: Petitioner No. Roll Number 1. 3950 2. 568 3. 0281 4. 1168 5. 1651 6. 4575 7. 2396 6. A general notice was published by the respondent No.2 in the local newspaper intimating regarding change of date of written test to 10th July, 2005. They had been allotted to following Roll numbers: Petitioner No. Roll Number 1. 3950 2. 568 3. 0281 4. 1168 5. 1651 6. 4575 7. 2396 6. A general notice was published by the respondent No.2 in the local newspaper intimating regarding change of date of written test to 10th July, 2005. Further the same was extended to 24.7.2005. All the 'petitioners appeared in the written test held on 24.7.2005. 7. By an order dated 8.8.2005 in L.P.A. No. 455 of 2005 (Md. Mushtaque Ahmad &. Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the said appeal directing the respondents to declare the result of the written test of successful candidates on the basis of weightage to be given in terms of stipulation made in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the same. 8. The results of the said written test were published in three phases in or about the month of October, 2005. 9. Thereafter on 21.10.2005 meritwise panel for the post of Class-IV grade for the district of Hazaribagh in 2005 was prepared. In the said panel, the names of the petitioners were missing. 10. According to the respondents, the panel was prepared on the basis of merit and marks obtained by the candidates but after taking report to the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005; the petitioners obtained copies of chart containing the marks obtained by each and every candidates, wherefrom it would be evident that the so-called merit-wise panel does not match with the marks secured by the empanelled candidates in the written test. After comparing the meritwise panel with actual marks obtained by those candidates, the petitioners found that a series of illegalities and irregularities have been committed by the concerned respondents in preparation of merit-wise panel. In order to demonstrate this fact, the petitioners beg to cite example of a few such empanelled candidates in the following manner: Panel No. Roll No. Name of candidate Qualification Marks obtained 671 329 Rashmi Kumari 8 th 20 643 3282 Deepak Ram Ravidas 9 th 69 624 393 Bhimesh Kandulna 8 th 30 654 1136 Kanchan Kumari Matric 58 634 376 Anil Kumar Das Matric 74 673 400 Upendra Pathak Matric 74 617 5903 Mahendra Rana Matric 88 608 21 Pramod Kumar Dubey Matric 88 11. That the petitioners have also found the cross-list containing Roll Number, name and marks wherefrom it could be gathered that the following candidates who remained absent in the written test but surprisingly marks have been shown to be allocated to them and those candidates are as follows: Name Panel Number Marks Indradeo Ram 46 106 Akhilesh Prasad 127 148 Santosh Kumar 171 146 Raj kishore Mehta 225 144 Shankar Mehta 227 144 Kaleshwari Ram 241 144 12. Even the candidate who obtained zero (0) mark, has also been empanelled and he has been provided appointment. 13. In compliance to an order passed by this Hon’ble Court W.P.(S) No. 7299 of 2005 (Mahadeo Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others) an enquiry was held in respect of procuring appointment by giving wrong and false information. After such enquiry and letter No. 156 dated 30.12.2006, the respondent No.3 submitted a report observing therein that one Sri Ranjit Kumar Dubey got such appointment by making wrong statement and, accordingly, his services were directed to be terminated. 14. By Taking resort to the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioners could obtain photocopy of the panel prepared by the respondents and on bare perusal of the same the following fact have been detected. I. Although Clause-2 of the Advertisement specifically and emphatically provides that the candidates must be above 8th Class Pass and below Matriculation, but some of the candidates who have been shown in the panel are either below 8th Pass or above Matriculation. The statement in respect to candidates who are below 8th Class Pass are as under: Sl No. Sl. No. in the panel Name of candidates Qualification 1 645 Mahvir Ram Class III pass 2 670 Sitaram Mahto 5 TH Class Pass 3. 622 Sahadeo Prasad 7 th Class Pass 4. 614 Kailash Mahto 7 th Class Pass 5. 629 Gopi Ravidas 6 th Class Pass 6. 636 Mahadeo Yadav 7 th Class Pass 7. 604 Ashok Kumar Ram 7 th Class Pass 8. 600 Ganesh Ram 7 th Class Pass 9. 692 Nirmal Sao 7 th Class Pass 10. 587 Rohit Ram 7 th Class Pass 11. 576 Moti Prasad 5 th Class Pass 12. 567 Raghu Nandan Yadav 7 th Class Pass 13. 565 Ram Kishore Upadhyay 5 th Class Pass 14. 556 Ram Chandra Prajapati 7 th Class Pass 15. 600 Ganesh Ram 7 th Class Pass 9. 692 Nirmal Sao 7 th Class Pass 10. 587 Rohit Ram 7 th Class Pass 11. 576 Moti Prasad 5 th Class Pass 12. 567 Raghu Nandan Yadav 7 th Class Pass 13. 565 Ram Kishore Upadhyay 5 th Class Pass 14. 556 Ram Chandra Prajapati 7 th Class Pass 15. 527 Karmi Devi 5 th Class Pass 16. 496 Horli Prasad 5 th Class Pass 17. 454 Bhuneshwar Ram 7 th Class Pass 18. 215 Dasrath Ram 7 th Class Pass 19. 61 Vidya Sagar Ojha 7 th Class Pass 20. 66 Anand Ram 5 th Class Pass Similarly, the statement in respect to candidates who are above Matriculation is as under: Sl. No. Sl. No. in the Panel Name of candidates Qualification 1 286 Rajesh Kumar Intermediate 2 280 Rajesh Kumar Graduate 3 263 Nasir Ansari Intermediate 4 273 Rudra Nayan Das Intermediate 5. 257 Md. Allauddin Post Graduate 6. 202 Sunil Kumar Graduate 7. 194 Shyam Sundar Das Graduate 8. 192 Shailendra Mochi Graduate 9. 188 Bijay Kumar Ravi Graduate 10. 178 Santosh Kumar Graduate 11. 159 Jugal Kishore Singh Intermediate 12. 161 Sachindra Kumar Jha Intermediate 13. 125 Ashok Kumar Yadav Intermediate 14. 143 Md. Kamil Intermediate II. One Bhuneshwar Prasad Paswan shown at serial number 29 is a dead person. Even on the date of examination he was a dead person. He was not alive and on his place his son Mithilesh Paswan appeared in the examination in the name of his father and he has also been empanelled and ultimately he got employment. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that one Prabhu Sao, who is a Peon in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, in collusion with the Members of the Committee and other persons related with the appointment, illegally got five of his family members appointed on Class- IV posts and has successfully been able to get their names inserted in the panel and those five persons are: I. Parmeshwar Sao II. Pradeep Kumar Sao (son of Prabhu Sao) III. Naresh Sao (son-in-law of Prabhu Sao) IV. Tapeshwar Sao (brother-in-law of Prabhu Sao) V. Sanjay Sao (son of brother-in-law of Prabhu Sao) 16. Pradeep Kumar Sao (son of Prabhu Sao) III. Naresh Sao (son-in-law of Prabhu Sao) IV. Tapeshwar Sao (brother-in-law of Prabhu Sao) V. Sanjay Sao (son of brother-in-law of Prabhu Sao) 16. It is specific case of the petitioners that a news item has been published in the daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" on 13.5.2009 wherefrom it is evident that Reshmi got her appointment shown to be 8th Class pass from Indira Gandhi Residential Girls School and accordingly, her name has been shown at serial number 671 in the panel but, in fact, she is illiterate as has been affirmed by Dr. Alka Tiwari, Headmistress of the said School. 17. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of materials available on record and in ignorance of the apparent facts pointed out by the petitioners in their representations. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the action of the respondent No. 2 in declining relief for consideration of appointment of the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and is purely discriminatory in nature. The impugned order is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that the action of the respondents in adopting a method of pick and choose according to their own sweet will by appointing persons, who did not even qualify in the written test and by ignoring apparent errors in the selection process vitiates the entire selection process. 18. Leaned Sr. Counsel further argued that the selection process being vitiated with apparent errors, the appointments made to other similarly situated persons while ignoring the case of the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that there is no clause for written examination in the said Advertisement and as such, holding a written exams against the rules and on the ground on equity also as the petitioners are seeking appointment of IV Grade employee, their cases ought to have been considered. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that if vacancy are still there, they should be appointed, condoling the delay, considering their appointments are being done on IV grade. It has been lastly argued by the learned Sr. Counsel that one person having lessor marks than the petitioners, has been appointed. 19. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 20. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that if vacancy are still there, they should be appointed, condoling the delay, considering their appointments are being done on IV grade. It has been lastly argued by the learned Sr. Counsel that one person having lessor marks than the petitioners, has been appointed. 19. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 20. Learned Standing Counsel-I appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived and not maintainable in the eyes of law and fit to be dismissed. Learned standing counsel further argued that these petitioners have failed in the written exams, after appearing in the written exams and the process of recruitment, the advertisement is being challenged and also terms of conditions of the advertisement. 21. Standing Counsel further argued that on the basis of written examination a merit list of 676 candidates was prepared. The merit list was examined by the District Level Panel Construction Committee. The said Committee found that the names of 33 candidates have been wrongly entered in panel who are below 8th class pass. Therefore, their names was deleted from the panel vide order dated 27.7.2006. As per order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 7299/2005 in the matter of Mahadeo Yadav and others, the enquiry was made and after proper enquiry the said error was corrected. 22. Learned S.C.-I stated that Prabhu Saw is a daily wager computer operator. As per decision dated 5.7.2005 all the daily wager computer operators were already exempted from the tabulation work for preparation of panel. Parmeshwar Saw and four other candidates were succeeded in the written test and on the basis of merit their names were recommended by the District Level Panel Construction Committee for appointment. The District Level Panel Construction Committee has only recommended the names of candidates who qualify in the examination as per merit and schedule of reservation. The concerned appointing authority were directed to verify the original certificates, then after full satisfaction, appointment letters were issued as per vacancy position. In case of Reshmi, the concerned authority after verification found that she was not eligible for appointment. It was further stated that the petitioners did not obtain pass marks in the written exams, therefore, their names were not included in the merit list. In case of Reshmi, the concerned authority after verification found that she was not eligible for appointment. It was further stated that the petitioners did not obtain pass marks in the written exams, therefore, their names were not included in the merit list. On the representation of the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, after proper verification, passed reasoned order dated 16.9.2011 in accordance with law. Learned standing counsel justified the impugned order and submitted that the errors found in selection process has already been corrected by the District Panel Committee, the petitioners did not passed in the written examinations, therefore, their names were not included in the panel. There is no illegality in not appointing the petitioners. 23. 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 infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.9.2011, rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners failed in the written examination, no candidates who have been failed in the written examinations, could have been appointed, even if the appointment was of Grade-IV employee. The petitioners have challenged the holding of the written examinations after appearing in the same, is not at all tenable. The petitioners challenged the terms and conditions of the advertisement after appearing in the same and after being declared unsuccessful is also not tenable in eyes of law. Admittedly, the petitioners are seeking appointment from the panel of Advertisement No. 2/02 in 2018, no directions can be given for appointment from the panel of 2005. It is settled principle of law and has been held in catena of decisions that merely empanelment for appointment does not create a vested right to get appointment. In the instant case, no illegalities have been proved by the petitioners, the process of selection has also not been challenged in proper way. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in (1991)2 SCC 47, held that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules to indicate, the State has no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. 24. Unless the relevant recruitment rules to indicate, the State has no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. 24. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, no case is made out for interference in the present writ application. I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 25. Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.