JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, learned Government Pleader 23 along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader 23, for the State, and; Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. The petitioners have moved this Court praying for the following reliefs: "A. For commanding the respondents to add/amalgamate the sanctioned post of teacher of 33,916 under different subjects of Secondary/Senior Secondary Schools which has been sanctioned by the government on 21.04.2020 as contained in Annexure 10 in the sixth phase of selection of teachers. B. Also for commanding the respondents to fill up the vacant sanctioned post from successful candidates of Secondary teacher eligibility Test, 2011 only thereafter consider the appearing candidates in the Secondary/ Senior Secondary Examination who has not passed STET exam which is going to be held between 09.09.2020 to 21.09.2020. C. For commanding the respondents to appoint first to the petitioners and similarly situated other candidates, who have passed BSITET examination in 2012 against the sanctioned post of Social Science teachers which was lying vacant since 21.06.2017 and subsequently sanctioned post on 14.05.2020 which is evident from Annexure 10. D. Also necessary relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions for the petitioners are entitled in the eye of law." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has itself come up with a detailed schedule with regard to filling up of the vacancies, but they are not implementing the same. Further, it was submitted that a coordinate Bench in CWJC No.20095 of 2019 and its analogous cases vide order dated 18.02.2020, has directed that the vacancies up to June, 2019 shall be made available for teachers, who had qualified the Bihar State Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as the 'STET') in 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the State has not come up with any reason as to why it has not proceeded with such recruitment. Learned counsel submitted that the Court has wide and sufficient power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the authorities to go ahead and complete such recruitment of teachers. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the State has not come up with any reason as to why it has not proceeded with such recruitment. Learned counsel submitted that the Court has wide and sufficient power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the authorities to go ahead and complete such recruitment of teachers. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has chalked out a programme and, accordingly, it would proceed, but the Court may not interfere in the matter as basically, there is no vested right of the petitioners and further, their right will only accrue for consideration of their candidature, but the Court may not direct that the State recruit the teachers, that too, in a fixed time-frame. Further, with reference to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, learned counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in P Suseela and Others v University Grants Commission and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 129 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2891 of 2015 and others arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.36023-36032 of 2010) and analogous cases wherein, by judgment dated 16.03.2015, inter alia, as per learned counsel, it has been held at paragraph 15 (of the court version) that a vested right would arise only if any of the persons have been actually appointed on the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors and further, it has been held that merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a National Eligibility Test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the candidates is affected. 5. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the stage has not yet been reached, for considering such issues for the present, and once the State takes a positive decision with regard to how much recruitment it can make, based on other valid and germane considerations, viz. the financial burden etc. and the compelling need for making such recruitment, the Court would not interfere in the matter. the financial burden etc. and the compelling need for making such recruitment, the Court would not interfere in the matter. It was further submitted that the stand taken by the petitioners that they would lose because the validity of their STET qualification acquired in 2012 would end, is premature for the reason that the State had already extended life of the panel for two years and if it is felt that the said persons would lose because of the process not being completed, the State Government may take a decision on the issue and only if it goes against the interest of the petitioners, they may move the appropriate forum, but the same cannot be a ground at present, because it is merely presumptive at this stage and the Court may not interfere only on such presumption, as sought to be so done by the petitioners. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that just because a programme and schedule was drawn up by the State Government, the same per se cannot be said to be binding so as to compel the State to go ahead with the recruitment and complete the process. It is for the State to decide, inter alia, the quantum of recruitment, when exactly to undertake such recruitment, and most importantly, basing such decision taking into account the relevant aspects, including the financial resources of the State Government. Thus, the Court, on an overall assessment, does not find that present is a fit case to exercise its prerogative and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. It is apposite, at this juncture, to consider some relevant judicial pronouncements apropos the issues raised herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S S Balu v State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 held: '12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti, (2006) 10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92].) The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti, (2006) 10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92].) The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. (See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar, (2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715].) In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800: (1991) 17 ATC 95] a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 7) "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. 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 so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted."' (emphasis supplied) 8. Relying on the aforesaid extract from S S Balu (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, in Ranjeet Kumar v State of Jharkhand,2012 SCC OnLineJhar 2102, opined: '(xvi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 : 2009 (122) FLR 54 (SC).], at paragraph 12 as under: xxx In view of the aforesaid decision, there is no right vested even in a candidate, who is forming part of the select list, to be appointed. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, it is a prerogative power vested in the State either to fill up the posts or not to fill them up and as per Service Jurisprudence there is no corresponding 'right' or 'duty' of the word "power". There is several prerogative "powers" of the State, which have no corresponding "legal obligations" or "a right" vested in any person. One of them is either to fill up all the posts, which are vacant or to fill them up partly. All this depends upon the public need; administrative exigencies or looking to the availability of infrastructure or looking to the budgetary provisions. Above all, even if other factors are positive, then also it is a prerogative power of the State not to fill up all the vacancies, despite there being enough infrastructure etc. This power, vested in the State, cannot be labelled as a "public duty" to fill up all the vacancies. Citizens may be capable of holding those posts; they may be more helpful to the State; their ability may be very useful to the public at large, had they been appointed on the posts of Sub Inspector, Sergeant, Company Commander, but, the State has all power not to appoint them and not to fill up all the vacancies, There is no legal obligation on the part of the State that whatever vacancies are falling vacant, they must be filled up immediately. Article 16 of the Constitution of India never creates any right to the citizens that at one stretch or in one go, all the vacancies must be filled up. It may be a strategic method of the State that if phase-wise public posts are filled up, they may get better candidates because they have studied latest technology or latest knowledge had been gathered by them, otherwise all the Police Inspectors will be employed having no knowledge of latest technology. There may be a circumstance, which has been kept in mind by the State that if the posts of Sub Inspector are filled up in a phase-wise manner, the new candidates who are even fresh graduates having forensic science degrees may apply. There may be a circumstance, which has been kept in mind by the State that if the posts of Sub Inspector are filled up in a phase-wise manner, the new candidates who are even fresh graduates having forensic science degrees may apply. It is not obligatory on the part of the State to disclose its mind. The thinking process is a complex phenomenon of the State. High Court in its power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Cannot go beyond the thinking process of the State and, therefore, it is technically known as "policy decision", which in the political science, is known as "the exclusive power of the State". Neither the policy decision can be altered by this Court nor this Court can issue a writ of mandamus to exercise "the exclusive power of the State," because this power is not a legal obligation at all.' (emphasis supplied) 9. This Court respectfully concurs with the opinion in Ranjeet Kumar (supra). Moreover, the applicable position of law is no longer res integra in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in State of Orissa v Raj Kishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 : '18. It is the exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration to initiate the selection process for filling up vacancies occurred during a particular year. There may be vacancies available but for financial constraints, the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection process for making appointments. Bona fide decision taken by the appointing authority to leave certain vacancies unfilled, even after preparing the select list cannot be assailed. The courts/tribunals have no competence to issue direction to the State to initiate selection process to fill up the vacancies. A candidate only has a right to be considered for appointment, when the vacancies are advertised and selection process commences, if he possesses the requisite eligibility.' (emphasis supplied) 10. Needless to state, if and as and when the State authorities proceed in the matter, the petitioners then, in futuro, may have an actionable cause if their rights are infringed and/or if any prejudice accrues to and/or there is any discrimination. However, the Court, in praesenti, would not act on the premise of a presumption and lay down any guidelines as to what procedure or time-frame the State Government should adopt. However, the Court, in praesenti, would not act on the premise of a presumption and lay down any guidelines as to what procedure or time-frame the State Government should adopt. In the opinion of the Court, whether recruitment, if at all any, is to be made at the current stage or not, is wholly in the domain of the Executive. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this writ petition stands disposed off. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, in future, if in the consideration of their candidature for recruitment to the post of teachers under the State Government, any condition, which adversely impacts the petitioners' rights, is imposed.