JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Since, the relief sought for in the above writ applications are more or less identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, all writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In the aforesaid writ applications, the petitioners have interalia prayed for direction upon the respondents to prepare fresh Panel list according to the seniority and for quashing Advertisement No.2/10 for preparation of Panel of Grade IV employee in the district of Chatra. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ applications, is that the petitioners have been working on daily wage basis for last several years against the vacant and sanctioned posts of Class-IV in the different sections of Chatra Collectorate. The names of the petitioners are found in the Panel list prepared by the Collectorate for absorption in the Class-IV posts. Since, the grievance of the petitioners for regularization was not mitigated because of the advertisement published by the respondents vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court to challenge the said advertisement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously urged that the petitioners having rendered the services for last so many years deserves to be considered for regularization in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others. Vrs. Umadevi (3) and Others , (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Learned counsel further submits that inspite of regularizing the services of the petitioners, the respondents have gone for Advertisement No.2/10 which is illegal and void being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ applications, a counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been interalia submitted that revised Panel list/Merit list has been prepared and the names of the petitioners appeared in the said revised panel list but their name was much below to the rank of other candidates. The petitioners name were not in the tune with roster approved by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that as per the guidelines of the Government Circular, the merit list has lapsed after one year, thereafter fresh merit list would be issued. The petitioners name were not in the tune with roster approved by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that as per the guidelines of the Government Circular, the merit list has lapsed after one year, thereafter fresh merit list would be issued. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons stated hereinbelow: (I) Admittedly, writ petitions lack certain foundational facts with regard to claim for regularization in view of the fact that none of persons below to the rank of petitioners in the revised panel have been considered for regularization/absorption in Class-IV vacant and sanctioned post. Moreover the revised panel where the name of petitioners have appeared has lapsed after expiry of one year. (II) So far as the selection in pursuance to Advertisement No.2/10 is concerned, the selection in pursuance to said advertisement must have attained its finality. In the meantime, more than eight years has elapsed. Therefore, at this distance of time, it would not be legally tenable/permissible to direct the respondents to set at naught the Advertisement No.2/10. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners on that score being thoroughly misconceived does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. In that view of the matter, considering the grievance of the petitioners and looking to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, this Court is loath to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions sans merit are dismissed.