JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification as contained in Letter No.229 dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby applications were invited for filling up the vacant positions of Chairperson and Members in Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (JSCPCR). 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by clause-12 of the impugned notification, which provides that any appointment made, will be subject to the final decision of this Court in W.P.(S)Nos.916 of 2024 and 910 of 2024. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid two writ petitions being W.P.(S) Nos.910 of 2024 (Mrs. Kajal Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and 916 of 2024 (Sunil Kumar Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), have already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024, thus there was no occasion to give reference of these two writ petitions. 5. On query, it has been submitted that two separate Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. Nos.16 of 2025 and 9 of 2025, have been filed against the order of dismissal of the aforesaid two writ petitions, which has been mentioned in para-19 of the writ petition. 6. The department seeks to fill up the posts of Chairperson and one Member of the JSCPCR. There are two vacancies. 7. As mentioned above, two writ petitions were conjointly filed and admittedly both these writ petitions have been dismissed, against which two separate Letters Patent Appeals were filed. 8. The Appointing Authority thus, by way of precaution had mentioned in the Advertisement that any appointment will be effected by the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the writ petitions being W.P.(S) Nos.916 of 2024 and 910 of 2024. 9. Though the writ petitions have been dismissed yet the Letters Patent Appeals are pending, thus the appointment now, should naturally be subject to the final decision of L.P.A. Nos.16 of2025 and 9 of 2025. 10. Thus, giving reference of the writ petitions, when they were already dismissed, is a mere irregularity which will not render the Advertisement to be a nullity. 10. Thus, giving reference of the writ petitions, when they were already dismissed, is a mere irregularity which will not render the Advertisement to be a nullity. Now, since the Letters Patent Appeals are pending, the right of the parties will be covered by the decision of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. I am not interfering with the appointment process. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.