Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. C.W.J.C. No. 4921 of 1993 is directed against an order dated 27.4.1993 whereby and whereunder appointed of 13 candidates including the petitioners have been cancelled with immediate effect and also the order dated 20th Feb. 1993 issued under the signature of Officer-on-Special Duty, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna whereby the merit list prepared by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board has been cancelled. The said orders are contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application. A further prayer has been made on behalf of writ petitioner to the effect that a writ of or in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to terminate their services. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993 the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to re-instate them on the post of Veterinary Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar as also for a declaration that the judgment of this Hon ble Court, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 and C.W.J.C. No. 635 of 1991 is not applicable so far as he is concerned. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioners applied for their appointments in the post of Field Supervisor in the Directorate of Soil Conservation, Bihar, Patna. The total number of vacancies notified was 75. The examinations were completed in 1988 but the result was published in June, 1990. The Bihar State Subordinate Service Board recommended the names of petitioners including 115 candidates as successful candidates. Upon verification of their certificates, they were appointed by the State of Bihar by a notification dated 1.12.1990 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. 4. Two writ applications were filed before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 (Yogendra Mandal V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 935 of 1991 (Niranjan Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. ) wherein a question was raised as to whether the calculation of the marks beyond 30 in Hindi examination was legal, valid or not. this Court answered the said question in negative. A copy of the said judgment is contained in Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993. It further appears that another writ application was filed being C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 which was disposed of on 24.2.1992 which was also allowed in view of the aforementioned decision of this Court in Yogendra Mandals case (Supra); 5. A copy of the said judgment is contained in Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993. It further appears that another writ application was filed being C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 which was disposed of on 24.2.1992 which was also allowed in view of the aforementioned decision of this Court in Yogendra Mandals case (Supra); 5. The contention of the petitioners in both the Writ petitions is that the said order had been passed without impleading them as parties and in any event they having already been appointed, their services could not have been directed to be terminated in terms of the aforementioned judgment. It has further been submitted that as prior to the issuance of the impugned orders the principles of the natural justice had not been complied with the same are nullities. 6. On the other hand, the contention of the State is that the services of the petitioners had been terminated in accordance with the aforementioned judgment. 7. Mr. S.P. Mukherjee appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 4921 of 1993 and Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993 submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, as the same had been passed in terms of a judgment wherein the petitioners were not parties. It has further been submitted that in any event an equitable view of the matter should be taken. The learned Counsel in support of his contention relied upon a derision of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Munindra Kumar V/s. Rajiv Govil reported in -- . It was further submitted that delay in filing the earlier writ application must be held to have defeated justice and thus this Court should grant appropriate relief to the petitioners. It was further submitted that this Court in suitable cases may review its earlier order and thus the writ application is maintainable. Reference in this connection was made to Shivdeo Singh V/s. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1909. 8. Mr. It was further submitted that this Court in suitable cases may review its earlier order and thus the writ application is maintainable. Reference in this connection was made to Shivdeo Singh V/s. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1909. 8. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Standing Counsel No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that interim orders were passed in C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 and thus in terms of the aforementioned judgment all appointments which have been made subject to the decision in these cases must be held to be non-est in law.: It has been submitted that appointments of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2858 of 1993 were made on 14.7.1991, i.e. after the interim order was passed, and thus the department has no other option but to Act in the light of the said judgment. It was submitted that in any event, the prayers made in C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993 to the effect that they are not bound by the aforementioned judgment, cannot be allowed. 9. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission has drawn our attention to Paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit 10. Mr. Durga Nand Jha appearing on behalf of the Intervenor submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 a revised select list was prepared and the name of Intervenor stand at Serial No. 15 thereto. According to the learned Counsel, the said Intervenor is yet to be appointed and if the petitioners continue in service the Intervenor would not get any chance of being appointed at all. It has been stated that as despite the judgment of this Court a fresh merit list was not prepared, a contempt application was filed which was registered as M.J.C. No. 859 of 1992 and only in the show cause filed in the said proceeding, a revised list was annexed which was contained in Anriexure-2 to the said application. It has been stated that advertisement was made for appointment in two different departments namely, Soil Conservation Deptt. and Planning Department. It has further been stated that after a revised list was prepared, some of the petitioners namely "petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 47 and 48 had again been recommended in the second merit list. It has been stated that advertisement was made for appointment in two different departments namely, Soil Conservation Deptt. and Planning Department. It has further been stated that after a revised list was prepared, some of the petitioners namely "petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 47 and 48 had again been recommended in the second merit list. The name of the petitioner No.7 figures in the revised list of the Soil Conservation Department but the name of the rest of the petitioners have not been recommended. 11. Mr. S.J. Makhopadhaya, who appeared on behalf of the Intervenor supporting the writ application, submitted that the appointments were made pursuant to two notifications of the Planning Department on 27.9.1991 and 20.9.1981. According to the learned Counsel all the posts were filled up from the panel prepared in the light of the 1st Judgment which is contained in Annexure-I/C dated 21.9.1993. It has been stated that in the Statistics Department all the appointments have been made prior to filing of the writ application and thus appointments which have been made earlier thereto cannot be disturbed. It was submitted that C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 disposed of on 22.7.1991 was inrelation to the employees of the Animal Husbandary Department. 12. Mr. D.K. Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Intervenor, submitted that after the Bihar Public Service Commission published a revised list the writ applications being C.W.J.C. No. 5085 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 6389 of 1993 were filed. 13. It has been stated that in the counter-affidavit in both the cases, it has categorically been stated that there 98 posts against which 88 posts have been filled up and thus 10 posts were vacant. 14. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. In the advertisement in question published by Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, the Hindi paper carrying 100 marks was a compulsory paper, but 30 marks therein only was the qualifying marks. It was stipulated that the candidate must secure minimum 30 marks in Hindi but the marks secured therein were not to be added with other marks. 15. However, the Subordinate Service Selection Board issued a direction that for the purpose of preparing select list, marks obtained in Hindi by the candidates concerned shall be added to the marks obtained by them in other subject. 16. 15. However, the Subordinate Service Selection Board issued a direction that for the purpose of preparing select list, marks obtained in Hindi by the candidates concerned shall be added to the marks obtained by them in other subject. 16. The aforesaid decision was the subject matter of two writ applications filed by Yogendra Mandal being C.W.J.C. No. 693 of 1991 and Niranjan Kumar being C.W.J.C. No. 635 of 1991. In the aforesaid writ application an interim order was passed on 14.3.1991 which was to the following effect: If any appointment is made on the post of Pashudhan Sahayak during the pendency of the writ application that will be subject to the final order that may be passed in this writ application. 17. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ applications by a judgment dated 22nd July, 1991 inter-alia, holding that the marks secured by the respective candidates in Hindi paper above 30 can not be added to the total marks obtained by them, as although Hindi was a compulsory paper but marks secured therein could only have been considered for the purpose of qualifying marks arid not for the purpose of judging their merit Om Prakash J. held: In view of the above both the writ petitions are allowed. Boards above decision, as contained in Annexure-A taken arbitrarily and without the approval of the State Government and the merit/seniority list prepared on the basis of such decision, as contained in Annexure-1, are hereby quashed with a direction to the Board to prepare and publish promptly a fresh merit/seniority that in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-5. The Board shall pay a cost of Rs. 500/ - (five hundred) to each of the two petitioners. S.B. Sanyal, J. while delivering a concurrent judgment, upon taking into consideration the fact that the writ applications were filed on 25.1.1991 an interim order as quoted hereinafter were passed on 14.1.1991, observed as follows: In that view of the matter even if any appointment has been made and or is in the process of notification that being subject to the result of this application is non-est. In short, the respondents are directed to re-arrange the merit list according to the observation in the main judgment after treating Hindi as a qualifying subject only. 18. In C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 (Satish Kumar and Ors. In short, the respondents are directed to re-arrange the merit list according to the observation in the main judgment after treating Hindi as a qualifying subject only. 18. In C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 (Satish Kumar and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. ) another Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 24.2.1992 followed the decision of this Court in Yogendra Mandals case (Supra) and held as follows: We, however, heard learned Counsel for the State but he was not able to show any provision under which respondent No. 4 could take into consideration marks beyond 30 for the purpose of calculation. We may also refer to the decision in the case of Yogendra Mandal V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C. W.J.C7 Nos. 693 and 935 of 1991 disposed of on 22.7.1991) wherein it has been held that the Board was in error in taking into consideration marks contained in General Hindi beyond 30. It is true that in those writ applications the question was for fixing inter se seniority but that does not really make any real distinction. The question was whether for the purpose of seniority amongst the candidates selected by the same examination marks obtained beyond 30 in Hindi could be taken note of. The same question arises here. We in the circumstances, allow this application at this stage and quash Annexure-3. We also direct respondent No.4 to prepare another list in the light of the observation and direction given in this writ application. The writ application is thus disposed of. 19. In view of the aforementioned direction of this Court a revised list was prepared wherein name of some of the writ petitioners figure; whereas some of the petitioners admitted have been found to be not eligible for appointment in terms thereof. It is stated that names of Md. Sohil Ahmad whose services had been terminated by an order dated 27.4.1993 also finds place. 20. It however, appeals that another writ application was filed being C. WJ.C. No. 3352 of 1990 wherein a question was raised with regard to the seniority list on the basis of the revised select list. In the said writ application an Intervention application was filed on behalf of candidates whose names finds place in the 1st list and a contention was raised by them that the writ application should be dismissed. In the said writ application an Intervention application was filed on behalf of candidates whose names finds place in the 1st list and a contention was raised by them that the writ application should be dismissed. on the ground of delay and laches alone. this Court held: Lastly, Mr. Mukherjee has alternatively submitted that the petitioners having not challenged the validity of the appointments already made prior to the filing of this writ application such appointees may not be dislodged in the interest of justice inasmuch as some of them, in the meantime, have also now become overage for taking chance for their appointments elsewhere. I find some substance in this submission of Mr. Mukherjee. In fact, in the present writ application also, for the first time, by order dated 3.5.91, an interim order was passed that pending admission of this application, no further appointment should be made on the basis of the merit list prepared by the Board which was later, however, clarified by order dated 22, 7.91 that during the pendency of this application, any appointment made on the post of Secretariat Assistant pursuant to an advertisement (Annexure-1) should be subject to the result of this application. In this view of the matter, I do not feel inclined to disturb the appointments which had already been made prior to the filing of the present writ petition pursuant to the merit list prepared after adding the excess marks obtained by the respective candidates in Hindi. 20.ThepetitionersofC.W.J.C.No.4921 of 1993 were not parties in the aforementioned writ applications. However, it appears that petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993 had filed a Special Leave petition in the Supreme Court of India against the Judgment passed in C.W.J.C.No. 6963 and 9351 of 1991 and by judgment dated 29.1.1992 the said Special Leave petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to move before this Court. 21. As indicated above C.W.J.C. No. 2856 of 1993 has been filed, inter-alia, for a declaration that the judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6963 of 1991 and 6351 of 1991 is not applicable so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioner of the aforementioned writ application has questioned the said judgment on various grounds. 22. It is now well settled that such a power cannot be exercised by this Court. The petitioner of the aforementioned writ application has questioned the said judgment on various grounds. 22. It is now well settled that such a power cannot be exercised by this Court. this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can only issue a writ of certiorari to the courts and Tribunal subordinate to it but not against the High Court. The Supreme Court in Mirajkar V/s. Maharashtra reported in -- has held that the High Court is a superior court of record and thus if a judicial order is passed, by it even if erroneous, a person aggrieved by it, though a stranger, could move the Supreme Court under Article 136. It was further held that an order can be corrected in appeal but the question about the existence of the said jurisdiction as well as the validity or propriety of the order cannot be raised in a writ proceeding under Article 32. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case thus clearly held that even the Supreme Court of India has no power to issue a certiorari to the High Court, as the High Court is neither an inferior court nor a court of limited jurisdiction. 23. If the Supreme Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot even issue a writ of certiorari to the High Court, this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is certainly precluded from doing so. 24. The question, however, which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner or not. 25. It is unfortunate that in different writ applications different orders have been passed. It is true that the petitioners were not parties to the writ application but in view of the fact that in the earlier writ applications the policy decision by the State of Bihar to the effect that the marks obtained by the candidates in Hindi shall also be added, was questioned in C, W. J .C. Nos. 693 of 1991 and 935 of 1992. this Court categorically held that calculation of marks beyond 30 in Hindi was invalid. The aforementioned law laid down in the aforementioned cases also found favour with another Division Benches of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 disposed of on 24.1.1992. 693 of 1991 and 935 of 1992. this Court categorically held that calculation of marks beyond 30 in Hindi was invalid. The aforementioned law laid down in the aforementioned cases also found favour with another Division Benches of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7932 of 1991 disposed of on 24.1.1992. In terms of the aforementioned Division Bench decisions of this Court, therefore, the appointment of such petitioners who were selected upon taking into consideration the marks obtained by them in Hindi beyond 30 marks was illegal. this Court held: In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to prepare and publish promptly a fresh merit/seniority list of the result of the Secretariat Assistant end. Limited competitive examination after excluding the marks obtained in Hindi in excess of the qualifying marks by the respective candidates who had not been appointed until the date of filing of the present writ application, i.e. 22.5.1990, but will include the cases of even those candidates who were appointed after the aforementioned interim order was passed by this Court, and/or whose appointments were/are in the process of notification. In short, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to arrange the merit list according to the observations made above after treating Hindi as qualifying subject only and make appointments pursuant thereof. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 26. It is true that a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1253 of 1990 observed: In this view of the matter I do not feel inclined to disturb the appointments which have been already made prior to filling writ application pursuant to the merit list prepared before by adding the excess marks obtained by the respective candidates in Hindi. 27. In view of the conditions of appointment as also the selection process, as laid down in the advertisement, therefore, could not have been deviated from while preparing a select list by the State for that matter any other authority. Such deviation of departure by the State from its own policy decision as laid down in the advertisement attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such deviation of departure by the State from its own policy decision as laid down in the advertisement attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. The said policy decision has been declared null arid void by this Court and thus the State of Bihar was bound to give effect to the said judgment and pass all orders consequential thereto. It may be true that the petitioners were not parties to the aforementioned writ applications but the same, in our opinion, do not change the position as the State being a party in the aforementioned writ applications was bound by it and thus it was obligator) on its part to give effect to the said judgment. It is also well known that even if the principle of resjudicata are not attracted in such a case, the rule of amity or comity of decision requires that this Court should not take a different view which shall have different effects on different candidates. In such matters, this Court in our considered view, should take consistent decision. 28. We are also bound by the aforementioned Division Bench decision referred in C.WJ.C No. 693 of 1991, 935 of 1991 and 1932 of 1991. In this view of the matter, equitable considerations cannot be invoked so as to enable all the petitioners to continue in service. If such a direction is given, in our opinion, the same would be violative of the fundamental rights of die eligible candidates as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India viz. those candidates who had filed applications for their appointment in terms of the aforementioned advertisement and their places in the select list without taking marks secured by the candidates in Hindi, were higher than that of the writ petitioners. 29. It is true that in some cases the Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with the appointments already been made. In Munindra Kumar V/s. Rajiv Govil A.I.R. 1991 S.C. page 1608, it was held that more than 15% of marks allocated for interview, all the candidates appeared before the Interview Board knowing fully well the criteria laid down for their appointment. Although allocation of such high marks in the interview was held to be not justified by the Supreme Court, it refrained from interfering with the appointments already made. 30. Although allocation of such high marks in the interview was held to be not justified by the Supreme Court, it refrained from interfering with the appointments already made. 30. The said decision of the Supreme Court in Munindra Kumar (Supra) cannot be said to have any application what-so-ever to the facts and circumstances of this case. As noticed here in before, if the appointments of the petitioner are not interfered with, the other candidates who even according to the State of Bihar, rank higher in the merit list would be deprived from appointments, and thus a direction of this Court would affect the fundamental right of such candidates who are better merited than the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the submission of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 31. It is true that this Court may in a given situation review this order as has been held in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors. 1963 S.C. Page 1909). But such a power as is well known has to be exercised with circumspection. 32. The learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out before us as to on what ground the earlier decision of the Division Benches of this Court should be reconsidered. As indicated here in before, we sitting in Division Bench are also bound by the earlier Division Bench decisions. 33. However, we may observe that in the event there exists any vacancy, in other departments as was argued before us by the learned Counsel, we hope and trust that the State of Bihar shall take a decision in this regard as early as early possible for filling up the existing vacancies from amongst the candidates who have been selected strictly in accordance with the second select list. 34. It however, goes without saying that such petitioners whose names also appear in the second select list prepared pursuant to the judgments of this Court shall continue to be employed but their interest seniority shall depend on their respective positions in the select list and in accordance with law. The State of Bihar is also hereby directed to appoint the candidates strictly in accordance with second merit list. Such appointments should be made as early as possible and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 35. The State of Bihar is also hereby directed to appoint the candidates strictly in accordance with second merit list. Such appointments should be made as early as possible and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 35. This applications are disposed of with the aforementioned direction and observation but without any order as to costs. 36. Guru Sharan Sharma, J. I agree.