JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners and give appointment as Primary Teachers (Physical). 3. As per the pleadings, the petitioners had participated in the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 24.08.2002. They had cleared the examination, thereafter their cases had been recommended by the JPSC for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher (Physical). 4. Subsequently, the said recommendation had been recalled. The issue involved, “whether there was any requisition for the post of Primary Teacher (Physical) or not.” The matter ultimately went up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court in its judgment dated 04.07.2011, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8118-21 of 2010 in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors. had settled the issue. Para-17 is quoted hereinbelow:- “17. Further in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Chanan Ram (1998) 4 SCC 202 , this Court held that Government has the right to make selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. In the said case, it has been observed as follows: “17…… The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules….” In view of the aforesaid, it is inexpedient to consider the authorities relied on by the respondents in any detail. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in directing the appellants to fill-up 5% vacancies of Primary School Teachers from Physical Trained Candidates. However, we deem it expedient that in case the appellants have not framed any policy, it should frame a policy before it initiates its next process of appointment.” 5. In view of above submission, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.