ORDER : 1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the direction has been sought for upon the respondents to fill up the existing vacant posts pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2017 published for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers. 2. The writ petitioner has made such prayer on the basis of condition stipulated under Clause No. 16(vi) of the Advertisement wherein it has been provided that in course of scrutiny/verification of the certificates, if the candidature of one or the other candidates is being rejected, in that eventuality the vacant post is to be filled up from the respective category candidates on the basis of merit list. 3. Herein, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the number of vacancy which has been notified in the Advertisement has not been filled up and thereby the writ petitioner has been deprived from the chance of appointment, therefore, the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, has submitted that the filling up of the vacancy as notified in the Advertisement is the prerogative of the State Government which is to be looked into by taking into consideration so many criteria, i.e., the merit position of one or the other candidates, cut off marks etc., so as not to compromise with the merit to maintain the efficiency in the service due to induction of the person concerned in the establishment. It has been contended that the reference of Clause No. 16(vi) of the Advertisement is not applicable herein since it is not the case of the writ petitioner that he is seeking a direction on the ground of rejection of the certificate of one or the other candidate at the time of scrutiny/verification of the certificates. It has also been contended that the recruitment process in terms of Advertisement No. 10 of 2017 has already been concluded by issuance of offer of appointment in favour of successful candidates basis upon their merit position and subsequent thereto, fresh advertisement has also been issued in the year 2019. Submission has been made that the moment new advertisement has been issued, the remaining vacancy will stand automatically carry forwarded for filling up the same by virtue of fresh notification. Submission has been made that the moment new advertisement has been issued, the remaining vacancy will stand automatically carry forwarded for filling up the same by virtue of fresh notification. Learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the writ petition has got no merit. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading made in the writ petition as also appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf. 6. The issue which has been agitated in this writ petition that non-filling the vacancy in entirety as notified in the Advertisement cannot be said to be proper. Such consideration has been sought to be made by putting reliance upon the condition stipulated under Clause No. 16(vi) wherein the decision has been taken to call upon the other candidates in case the certificates of the candidates is found to be not proper at the time of verification of the certificates. 7. This Court, therefore, before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-filling of the post in entirety by the State as notified in the Advertisement cannot be said to be proper, deems it fit and proper to examine the applicability of the condition as stipulated under Clause No. 16(vi) of the Advertisement. The aforesaid condition reflects that the candidates who have already been inducted in the merit list and have been called upon for verification of the certificates, if certificate of any candidate has been found to suffer from any discrepancy, then the candidate below in the merit list will have to be invited for filling up of the post. Herein, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that his name is in the merit list and, as such, the aforesaid condition is not attracted so far as the case of the writ petitioner by making prayer to fill up the post is concerned. 8. So far as the issue of action of the State in not filling up the entire post is concerned, the law is well settled that the writ court cannot direct by issuing command upon the State to fill up the post in entirety, rather, it is the domain of the State Government to fill up the post since the same carry the financial implication. Apart from the financial implication, the merit is also to be assessed if the recruiting agency of the State Government has decided by way of policy decision for preparing the merit list and if the candidate is not coming upto the aforesaid criteria for the purpose of preparation of the merit list and on that count if the post remains vacant, the other candidates, who have not come into the consideration zone of the merit list, cannot insist for passing a direction to fill up the post, otherwise the result will be compromising with the merit position. 9. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 96 of 2019 [Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others] wherein also this Court while dealing with the non-filling up of the entire post, has dismissed the appeal. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is required to be referred herein which reads hereunder as: “12........................ Further contention of the writ petitioner is that the vacancies are available, so if a direction would have been issued by the writ Court, in that view of the matter, the cut off marks will be reduced. This argument is also not acceptable for the reason that even if for the notified vacancy, there cannot be a direction by the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review to fill up entire posts since the same depends upon the question of merit of one or other candidates and the policy decision of the recruiting agency, so there cannot be compromise in efficiency of the candidate. If the contention of the writ petitioner would be accepted, in that condition, the cut off marks which has been fixed by way of policy decision by the recruiting agency-J.P.S.C. would have to be directed to be reduced which cannot be allowed by passing a direction by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. This Court on the basis of discussions made herein above and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case so as to pass any positive direction. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.