1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned AC to SC-IV.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.S. No. 6766/2013, whereby and whereunder, the writ application preferred by the petitioners/ appellants for considering their candidature for appointment on Class-IV posts has been dismissed.

3. The fact in brief is that an advertisement was issued being Advertisement No. 01/2010 wherein applications were sought for from eligible candidates with respect to appointment in Class-IV posts. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners had applied and 12777 candidates were issued admit cards by the Hazaribag Collectorate for appearing in the written examination. The petitioners had duly appeared in the written examination held on 08.08.2010 and the results were published in the Notice Board on 12.09.2010 containing the names of 122 selected candidates as well as waitlisted candidates. The petitioners were successful in the written examination and their names figured at Serial Nos. 107, 108 and 110. The successful candidates were thereafter called for cycling test which was held on 19.09.2010 and all the writ petitioners were successful in the said test. On 20.09.2010 a meeting of the District Panel Preparation Committee was held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag and pursuant to the decision of the Committee, several candidates up to Serial No. 62 in the merit list were issued appointment letters in piecemeal fashion. It has been stated that as per the decision taken by the District Panel Preparation Committee in its meeting dated 09.06.2011 recommendation was made for left over 12 candidates for their appointment against the reported 14 vacant posts of Class-IV as per reservation roster. It has further been stated that the left over candidates such as the petitioners were recommended on 13.03.2012 for appointment against 51 vacant posts. On 14.08.2013, a decision was taken not only to appoint left over candidates from the panel of 2010 but also left over candidates of the panel of 2005 and it was also decided to ascertain the vacancy position. Several writ applications were preferred by some of the candidates being W.P.S. No. 4497 of 2012 and its analogous cases which were disposed of on 31.08.2013 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag to act in terms of the undertaking in the matter of appointment in Class-IV posts in the district of Hazaribag. Consequent to the said order, a decision was taken for appointment of the left over candidates. Despite their being vacancies and the petitioners being selected candidates were not issued appointment letters, a writ application was preferred by them being W.P.S. No. 6766 of 2013 which however was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.04.2019 which is the order impugned to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/ appellants, that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that there are still a large number of vacant posts and the petitioners being successful in the examination process deserves to be given appointment against the said vacancies. It has been submitted that despite taking a decision to adjust the left over candidates from the panel of 2010 the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the writ petitioners come within the zone of selection in Class-IV posts.

5. Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned AC to SC-IV, has submitted that the panel of 2010 will have no bearing now so far as the case of the writ petitioners are concerned. The petitioners have misinterpreted the meaning and purport of left over candidates as the same is confined to those candidates who are recommended but not appointed within Serial Nos.1 to 61.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the affidavits on record.

7. The writ petitioners/ appellants have been claiming appointment on account of being enlisted in the panel of 2010. Appointments were made from the said panel and since some of the candidates within Serial Nos. 1 to 61 were recommended for appointment but not appointed, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag had given an undertaking that such left over candidates will be adjusted. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that the left over candidates would not bring the candidature of the writ petitioners within its purview. The left over candidates would only include the aspirants whose names figured within Serial Nos. 1 to 61. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the State in the writ application that all the 61 posts have been filled up. It is also an admitted fact that no candidates lower in the panel have been appointed. Moreover, the panel is of the year 2010 and has long outlived its utility. The writ petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.S. No. 6766/2013. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

8. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.