JUDGMENT : S.K. JHA, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution India there are 11 petitioners in all. None of them has any specific grievance against any action of State Government. For what ventilation of any of their specific grievances this application has been filed, I must confess, I am at a loss to understand. The prayer made in the writ application is to issue an appropriate writ quashing a general instruction dated 27.6.1984 issued by the Director General, (respondent no. 3) as incorporated in annexure 1 to the writ application and the same with regard to a resolution of the State Government in its Finance Department under the ORDER :s of the Governor (State Government) dated 23.3.1985 as contained in annexure 1/1. None of the petitioners claims that the issuance of such a direction in annexure for the Government Resolution, annexure 1/1, has been prejudicial so far, to any of them. Shall I, then, call it a public interest litigation-certainly not because no interest of the public at large is at stake. Shall I term it as a representative application-obviously no, because it has not been averred as such in the application. How then is this Court in a position to entertain this application. But once having entertained it, without any petitioner being prejudiced so far are we to raise a ghost to kill it-is that the purpose of issuing a writ. I suppose not. 2. But let us not be technical, not to talk of hypertechnical in such matters. Since we have heard Mr. B.C. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioners at length, I think it worthwhile to deal with the merits of his contention and the point debated at the Bar. What are the points then. They shall follow. I must, therefore, pin point the question to be decided in this case. But how can it be decided unless we know what is the point involved. So I am starting with a clean slate or from a scratch. The State Government in its Finance Department passed a Resolution on the 30.12.1981 after carefully considering the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee with regard to the revision of scales of pay of Government employees. So I am starting with a clean slate or from a scratch. The State Government in its Finance Department passed a Resolution on the 30.12.1981 after carefully considering the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee with regard to the revision of scales of pay of Government employees. The Resolution runs into 164 pages, but we arc concerned in the instant case only with regard to paragraphs 9 and 11 of the Resolution to which our attention was invited and the point at issue has been sought to be raised. I am, therefore, refraining from going, or rather to be fair to the Counsel of the petitioner, to any other part of the Resolution excepting the aforementioned two paragraphs to which alone our attention was invited. Paragraph 9 reads thus:– "All rules/ORDER :s presently in force regarding fixation of pay on promotion from a lower to a higher post will continue to be operative until further ORDER :s". (Underlining is mine for the sake of emphasis). Paragraph 11 needs a quotation in extenso, although only two sub-paragraphs thereof will be pertinent to be dwelt upon in the context of this case, namely, sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Paragraph 11 runs thus:– "With regard to time-bound promotion, the Fourth Pay Revision Committee have made the following recommendations:– (i) Personnel management should envisage providing at least two promotions each and every employee in Government service, the first by the end of ten years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of service. (ii) If an employee, who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the tenth year. (iii) If an employee, although otherwise found fit for a second promotion, has not been able to secure a second promotion by the 25th year of his service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. (iv) The aforesaid facilities should be extended to all employees whether they belong to any formally constituted service or cadre, or not and including employees holding isolated posts. In their case, the pay scale immediately higher than the pay scale prescribed for the basic post should be considered as the pay scale for the junior selection grade, and the pay scale immediately higher to that of the aforesaid junior selection grade should be deemed to be the pay scale for the senior selection grade. (v) The aforesaid scheme of time-bound promotion will not be applicable to services, cadres and posts of which the maximum of the pay scale of the basic grade exceeds Rs. 2,000. (vi) The other conditions, the rules and procedures meant for usual promotion should be followed in case of the aforesaid time-bound system also. (vii) Since the aforesaid scheme is meant as an anti-stagnation measure, it should be applicable in case of only such employees who have not been able to get the first or the second promotion, as the case may be. In other words, the benefit of the time-bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were appointed or its corresponding revised pay scale. The benefit should not be made applicable to such employees who, after once joining Government service have, for any reason, been elevated to a higher pay scale by promotion, merger or even upgradation. This should require issue of specific ORDER :s in case of every employee which should obviously be done only after a careful examination of his service records. (viii) The aforesaid scheme is obviously not intended to deny any employee earlier promotion that comes in his favour in the usual course. The above recommendations have been accepted by Government subject to the condition that the benefit of time-bound promotion over and above the selection grade quota of posts as envisaged in paragraph 10, will be allowed to eligible employees only after first exhausting the possibility of accommodating such employees against the vacancies available in the selection grade". 3. The above recommendations have been accepted by Government subject to the condition that the benefit of time-bound promotion over and above the selection grade quota of posts as envisaged in paragraph 10, will be allowed to eligible employees only after first exhausting the possibility of accommodating such employees against the vacancies available in the selection grade". 3. It will thus be seen that paragraphs 11 (ii) and 11 (iii) specifically laid down that if an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the ten year and if an employee, although otherwise found fit for a second promotion has not been able to secure a second promotion by the 25th year of his service not-withstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year, (underlining is mine for the sake of emphasis). Cumulatively these two provisions envisage that if an employee is fit for promotion and if he has not been able to get promotion by 10 years of service he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the 10th year and if an employee is found fit for a 2nd promotion has not been able to secure a second promotion by the 25th year of his service he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. As I understand these provisions, they mean that if by 10 years of service an employee who is fit for promotion has not been promoted he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the 10th year and if an employee although otherwise found fit for a 2nd promotion has not been able to secure second promotion, by the 25th year of his service, he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. Such an employee who can seek shelter for a second promotion under paragraph 11 (iii) must have already been promoted to junior selection grade at the end of the tenth year. Once he had been so promoted, then and then only can he get the second promotion to the senior grade at the end of the 25th year. What I want to emphasise is that the second promotion under paragraph 11 (iii) can be given only after a first promotion has been given at the end of the tenth year in the junior selection grade under paragraph 11(ii). If a first promotion has not been given to him is he entitled to a second promotion, I put question to myself, at the end of the 25th year under paragraph 11 (iii)? The first promotion as envisaged or contemplated by paragraph 11 (ii) is a condition precedent to a second promotion to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. If the first promotion has not been given within 25th year of his service because of the fact that no such Resolution was adopted by the Government, on the basis of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee can he get two promotions simultaneously at the end of the 25th year-both first to junior selection grade and the second to the senior selection grade? That, in my view, will lead to a very anomalous if not an absurd position in law. Without the first promotion there cannot be a second promotion and the Government's Resolution has never contemplated anywhere that a double promotion is to be granted simultaneously. Initially a wrangle was sought to be raised at the Bar with regard to the statutory effect of such a Resolution. It is not necessary, I think, to go into that promoted dispute or quarrel and we assume, perhaps rightly so, that the State Government having issued a Resolution on the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee accepting some parts of the recommendation. They may, for the purpose of the instant case, be treated as at par with a statutory instrument having the force of law. Let us now come to the two impugned direction and Resolution (annexure 1 and 1/1). As already adverted to earlier annexure 1 is a communication/direction from the Director General (respondent no. They may, for the purpose of the instant case, be treated as at par with a statutory instrument having the force of law. Let us now come to the two impugned direction and Resolution (annexure 1 and 1/1). As already adverted to earlier annexure 1 is a communication/direction from the Director General (respondent no. 3) to all concerned clarifying, inter alia, that such employees of the armed forces who had been sought to be disciplined by inflicting a major punishment from the date of their promotion with effect from 1.4.1983 within three years thereof or from the date of their promotion major or minor punishment outweigh the rewards given to them or those against whom departmental proceedings were pending on the date of their pro motion should not be given any promotion and their promotion should be stopped. For this purpose all the subordinate authorities concerned were directed to send the list of such employees along with their results and/or proceedings against them within a week of the receipt of the letter. By annexure 1/1 which is, again, a Resolution of the State Government in the Finance Department with regard to the second time-bound promotion of the employees concerned as designated in the first Resolution dated 30.12.1981, which I have already dwelt upon at some length and which is the sheet-anchor of the petitioner, it was clarified that on account of some confusion arising therefrom, if any, that with regard to the time-bound promotion within 10 years or on completion of 10 years for the first time and twenty five years of the service for the second promotion which were made effective from the 1.4.1981, a question had arisen as to whether an employee officer on the completion of 25th year of his service was entitled to two promotions at the same time or not, and, if not, then in the second promotion what should be the difference in the number of years between the first promotion to the junior selection grade and the second promotion to the senior selection grade. It has been decided by the State Government that at the end of the 25th year both the promotions shall not be given because it would amount to a double promotion at the same time-one to the junior selection grade and the other to the senior selection grade or the employees who had been promoted in a manner not contemplated by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee would be different from that as envisaged in the Resolution dated 1.4.1981. Accordingly, it was further ORDER :ed in annexure 1/1 that a copy of the Resolution should be published in the Bihar Gazette for the knowledge of public at large and all the officers concerned as well as the Accountant General of Bihar and for necessary action. 4. The contention of Mr. B.C. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioner was that such as decision of the State Government as contained in annexure 1/1 and a direction for modalities of calculating for the purpose of promotion of an employee issued by the Director General (respondent no. 3) as incorporated in annexure 1 were against the decision of the State Government accepting the above mentioned recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee and were, therefore, liable to be struck down. This is the long and short of the matter. 5. When the Court confronted learned Counsel for the petitioners as to whether if one Resolution of the State Government, be it in the nature of accepting some of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee or not, be treated as a statutory instrument having the force of law a subsequent Resolution of the same State Government either modifying or unilaterally taking a decision even to the contrary would as much have the sanction of law or not, he tried to side track the issue and, to the best of my understanding, was unable to countenance such a confrontation. Would it then be just for us to say that a previous statutory instrument cannot in any manner be modified or rescinded or altered by a subsequent Resolution of the same Government? I see no reason to deviate from the well settled principle that if an instrument has a force of law, any such subsequent instrument has the same sanctity of law. What is wrong with annexure 1/1 then. I see no reason to deviate from the well settled principle that if an instrument has a force of law, any such subsequent instrument has the same sanctity of law. What is wrong with annexure 1/1 then. It is just a clarification though the learned Counsel projected it as a contradiction-and even if it were a contradiction in terms the latter would certainly supersede the earlier. There is thus no merit in this submission of Mr. Ghose. 6. With regard to the validity of annexure 1/1 it is merely laying down a modality for the purpose of time-bound promotion-a procedure to be uniformally followed for the purpose of time-bound promotion. There can be no manner of doubt that the Fourth Pay Revision Committee while making its recommendation was not oblivious of the fact that even a delinquent officer could not be granted a time-bound promotion for the simple reason that it has itself said "otherwise found fit for promotion". This is why I had underlined these clauses in the earlier part of the JUDGMENT :. The writ Court cannot go into the individual cases for testing as to whether a person, an employee or an officer was otherwise fit for promotion or not. It is for the departmental heads to look to the individual records and to find out as to whether any employee/officer fulfilled the criteria laid down for the fitness for promotion. I see not wrong in it. It is neither in any manner rescinding, modifying or obliterating any relevant portion of the Resolution of the Government which is the sole repository of the petitioners claim. It is not for the writ Court to find out the procedure or the modalities of finding out the fitness of an employee/officer for the purpose of promotion unless it can be held to be discriminatory or arbitrary-both emanating from the vice of arbitrariness and malafide inhibited by Article 14 of the Constitution. If a general guideline has been issued for all persons there is no scope for arbitrariness, no scope for malice in fact or malice in law. As a necessary corollary, therefore, the second contention of Mr. Ghose is equally without any foundation and crumbles as a structures piled upon heaps of sands. 7. It is needless, therefore, to go into the question of locus standi of the petitioners in this case. As a necessary corollary, therefore, the second contention of Mr. Ghose is equally without any foundation and crumbles as a structures piled upon heaps of sands. 7. It is needless, therefore, to go into the question of locus standi of the petitioners in this case. None of them has any individual grievance against any particular action of the respondents but they have merely sought to challenge the legality and validity of the Resolution of the State Government (annexure 1/1) and the guidelines as contained in the direction (annexure-1) of the Director General (respondent no. 3). There is no axe to grind in praesenti for any of the petitioner. What relief can be given to them? 8. I am, accordingly, constrained to hold that this application is meritless and is bound to fail. It is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any ORDER :as to costs.