Judgment B. L. Yadav, J. 1. These four analogous writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as identical questions of law are involved in these cases. 2. Whether these analogous petitions are barred by laches, and whether the judgment of the learned Single judge dated 7th August, 1986 passed in c. W. J. C. No.2358 of 1981 allowing the petition can be said to have been rendered per incuriam, and whether under the circumstances petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed and be held seniors to the private respondents, are the questions that fall for our determination in these four analogous writ petitions which shall be referred as c. W. J. C. Ist, C. W. J. C. IInd, C. W. J. C. IIIrd and C. W. J. C. IVth. 3. In the first writ petition (6423/90) the petitioners are Deputy collectors of the 25th batch of Officers appointed under the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Bihar Civil Service (Junior Branch) Recruitment rules, 1951. In view of the letter dated 6th October, 1976 103 vacancies for the post of Deputy Collectors were communicated to the Bihar Public Service commissioner (for short the Commission) and relevant advertisement for recruitments was published by the commission in the Searchlight (Newspaper ) in its issue dated 9th october, 1976 and the examination was held from December, 1976 to January, 1977. Results were published on december 1, 1977; The Commission communicated the result to the State government in view of the letter dated 3rd April, 1978 for appointment of the candidates in order of merit for 103 vacant posts of Deputy Collectors. Petitioners and other candidates of 25th batch were appointed as Deputy collectors vide Notification No.14572 dated 28-7-78 (Annexure-6 ). Respondents 192 to 393 were appointed as temporary Sub Deputy Collectors on ad hoc basis, on the basis of the notification dated 30.5.74 (Annexure-7 ). Respondents 3 to 191 were appointed as Sub Deputy Collectors on the basis of the results of 23rd Combined Competitive Examinations held in December, 1976 to January, 1977 (Vide Notification dated 3-7- 77 ). Respondents 192 to 393 were appointed as temporary Sub Deputy Collectors on ad hoc basis, on the basis of the notification dated 30.5.74 (Annexure-7 ). Respondents 3 to 191 were appointed as Sub Deputy Collectors on the basis of the results of 23rd Combined Competitive Examinations held in December, 1976 to January, 1977 (Vide Notification dated 3-7- 77 ). (Vide Annexures 8 and 8/a) The State government conceded the main demand of the Association formed by bihar Civil Service Association to merge Bihar Civil Service (Executive branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service into one service including the officers of ex-cadre posts even carrying the equal pay-scale w. e. f. April 1, 1974 (vide Annexure-9 ). In this resolution dated 24-3-74 it was decided that merger would be effected in three phases keeping in view the seniority of the officers. In the first year 1/3rd of the total strength of the Sub Deputy collectors would be merged whereas, 1/3rd in the second year and rests in the 3rd year. Only those could however be promoted who were entitled to against the posts available under promotion quota. Respondents 103 to 292 in the first C. W. J. C. were appointed as temporary Sub-Deputy collectors for consolidation work, even though excluded in the ambit of merger in view of the resolution dated 23.4.74 (Annexure-10)were appointed as temporary Sub-Deputy Collectors w. e. f.1-12-79 or probation. Respondents 192 to 293 were appointed as Sub Deputy Collectors in the pay scale of Rs.455-840/- in bihar Civil Service (Junior Branch) on ad hoc basis and in that capacity they continued till 4th April, 1979. In the civil list of 1978 the petitioners and the officers of 25th batch occupied serial no.228 to 2378 in the cadre of Deputy collector. Respondents 3 to 293 all along held posts in lower grade than the petitioners posted on the basis of. carrying high, responsibility. Respondents 3 to 292 were, however, shown by the State Government above the petitioners in the civil list dated 28.7.86 (Annexure 6 ). The position of the petitioners was at serial No.2158 to 2248. The civil list is normally compiled without inviting objections. Memo No.15774 dated 26-8-72 laid down the procedure for preparation of gradation list of officers of various cadres of services under the State Government. In other words, the civil list was not compiled in accordance with the procedure laid down. The position of the petitioners was at serial No.2158 to 2248. The civil list is normally compiled without inviting objections. Memo No.15774 dated 26-8-72 laid down the procedure for preparation of gradation list of officers of various cadres of services under the State Government. In other words, the civil list was not compiled in accordance with the procedure laid down. As yet the petitioners have no officially received any information by which they were asked certain information for compiling the civil list. Petitioners have learnt from it and this is why petitioners could not come to high Court earlier. The list so compiled is arbitrary. There appears no nexus in merging two cadres of Deputy collectors and Sub Deputy Collectors into one (Annexure-10) and to appoint respondents 3 to 292 on the basis of merger with retrospective effect. In this way petitioners valuable rights of seniority have been taken away. The petitioners having no other equally efficacious remedy than coming to this court, have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 22-9-79 of the Government of Bihar in the Department of Personnel and administrative Reforms (Annexure-1), whereby respondents 103 to 292 were appointed as Deputy Collectors with retrospective effect from 1-12-1977 on the basis of the decision taken on 24-3-74 (Annexure-9), and also to quash the notification dated 21-3-87 annexure-2) appointing Respondents 103 to 292 as Deputy Collectors with retrospective, effect from 1-4-96 instead of 1-12-76 and to quash notification dated.21-9-79 and 5-9-90 (Annexures 3 and 4) whereby respondents 3 to 191 were appointed as Deputy Collectors with retrospective effect from 1-12-77 and to quash the seniority list dated 28-7-1986 showing the respondents 3 to 292 above the petitioners, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the seniority afresh according to the rules. 4. 4. In the 2nd C. W. J. C. (4244/88)and 3rd C. W. J. C. (8637/88) relief has been sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the policy decision of the State Government dated 24-3-74 for merger of Bihar Civil Service (Senior Branch) and Bihar Civil Service (Junior Branch) and further for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the placement of respondents 3 to 1115 above the petitioners in the civil list dated 28-7-86 by virtue of merger decision dated.24-3-74 and to fix the seniority of petitioners and respondents afresh in accordance with the provisions of the rules and to quash the order of the state Government contained in notification dated 21-3-87 (vide Annexure 6) whereby respondents 927 to 1115 have been placed above the petitioners and to declare the placement of respondents 3 to 1115 above the petitioners as illegal. 5. The 3rd C. W. J. C. (8637/88) has been filed by the petitioners of 24th combined Competitive Examination held by the Commission and similar other persons who were directly recruited to the posts of Deputy Collectors. The petitioners and others appeared in the 24th Competitive examination held by the Commission who communicated the names of 51 persons including the petitioners for the post of Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch)and were appointed to the post of Deputy Collector on probation by notification No.18772 dated 4th October, 1977 (Annexure 1) of the State government. Out of the persons shown at serial Nos.5, 8, 22 and 35 did not join. Respondents 3 to 9 were appointed to the post of Sub Deputy Collectors and they are being impleaded in representative capacity to represent the interest of all the Sub Deputy Collectors used to be governed by the separate rules and the cadres of Sub deputy Collector and Deputy Collector were also different. 6. The 4th C. W. J. C. (5875/91) was a petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution filed by the sole petitioner jag Narayan Singh, who was declared successful by the Commission for 22nd combined Competitive Examination held for selection of the petitioner and other candidates as Sub Deputy Collectors. On 25-10-75 the petitioner was appointed as Sub Deputy Collector on probation (vide annexure 1 ). On 25-10-75 the petitioner was appointed as Sub Deputy Collector on probation (vide annexure 1 ). But later on he became Deputy Collector in view of the notification dated 17-8-76 w. e. f.1-4-76 (vide annexure 2) as the Government was running short of hands to expedite the consolidation scheme under the State. The Government decided to appoint 200 temporary Sub Deputy collectors for quick implementation of the consolidation work. The cadre of sub Deputy Collector and Deputy collector was merged by the government vide resolution dated 24.3.76 issued by the Personnel Department contained in memo No.4227 in which it was declared that merger would be effective from 1st April, 1974. It was also indicated that the officers who are working as Land Acquisition Officer and are appointed as such for expediting the consolidation scheme would not be covered by this Scheme and their services cannot be merged with the services of the Deputy Collectors (Annexure-5 ). The petitioner became deputy Collector with effect from 1-4-76 and he was working as such, whereas ad hoc appointees continued in service against purely temporary posts. The petitioner was appointed on probation since 25-10-75 whereas some other ad hocists were placed on probation on 20-9-77 and they were supposed to be in service from that day. These ad hoc appointees could not have been appointed on probation. The adhocists were regularised in service much after the petitioner. The petitioner was senior to those adhocists and continued as such, as it would appear from the gradation list published and circulated in 1985. Admittedly the private respondents were junior to the petitioner. But the State Government simply published the gradation list in which petitioner was shown junior that the adhocists. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the notification contained in Annexures-8 and 8/a and also for placement of the respondents below the petitioner in 1991 gradation list. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents (101 to 298) in the Ist writ petition mainly on the ground that petitioners in this case cannot challenge the notification of appointment of Respondents 3 to 298 of the year 1979 after 11 years. In other words, petition was barred by laches and the seniority list of 1986 can also not be challenged in the year 1990 on account of laches of 5 years. In other words, petition was barred by laches and the seniority list of 1986 can also not be challenged in the year 1990 on account of laches of 5 years. The appointment of the respondents as , Sub Deputy Collectors was made by relaxation of the recruitment rules, even though subjects in which they were examined were lessor in number but examination was held by the Commission. The merger notification itself was a result of relaxation of the recruitment rules. The merger notification vide clause 1 (e) covers the cases of respondents 101 to 298 and that is why the Government has itself taken a decision to appoint them on 20-5-78 as Deputy Collectors by way of merger with effect from 1-12-77. The decision dated 20-5-78 was implemented on 21-9-79 and 22-9-79 but the petition was filed and the learned single Judge held that the merger was legal and must take effect with effect from 1-4-76. There was no prayer for review of the High Courts judgment. Hence no writ can be issued against the earlier writ petition. 8. In the 2nd writ petition (4244/88) the case set up in the counter-affidavit was that the Division bench of this Court presided over by Hon ble N. P. Singh, J (as his Lordship then was) has already rejected the prayer for quashing the merger of the cadre of Sub Deputy Collector and deputy Collector in the year 1974, as it was challenged after about 14 years. Consequently that cannot be revived. That decision of the Division Bench became final. In case the policy of the merger is not challenged, petitioners cannot get any relief. Only some of the sub Deputy Collectors (Respondents 927 to 1115) got the benefit inasmuch as they became the Deputy Collectors from earlier date namely 1-4- 76 vide order dated 7-8-86 passed by Hon ble S. All Ahmad (Annexure-B) and that judgment became final. 9. In 3rd writ petition (8637/88)similar defence was taken in the counter-affidavit. In respect of the 4th writ petition 5975/91) the counter affidavit was that the petitioner cannot challenge the policy of merger and notification dated 24-3-74 and 21-3-87 and three other impugned orders. The petition was barred by laches and as the government has relaxed the rules consequently the appointment of the respondents, even though they were examined in lessor number of subject, was valid and legal. 10. The petition was barred by laches and as the government has relaxed the rules consequently the appointment of the respondents, even though they were examined in lessor number of subject, was valid and legal. 10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the private Contesting respondents were appointed; even though earlier than the petitioners but in fact they have not passed Deputy Collectors examination rather they have passed Sub Deputy collectors examination, that also not in all subjects. Consequently even though they were appointed earlier but cannot be senior to the petitioners who were appointed to the post of Deputy collectors and were examined by the commission in all the question papers prescribed. The Private contesting respondents cannot be senior to the petitioners and that the policy decision of the State Government pertaining to the merger of the Sub Deputy Collectors and Deputy Collectors into one cadre was not correct or legal and the rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the order of merger in the earlier C. W. J. C. No.4244/88 has no effect. There were no laches and if any, the same has been explained. The petitioners were entitled to be held senior to the private contesting respondents and the seniority list showing the private contesting respondents senior to the petitioners be quashed. 11. Learned counsel for the private contesting respondents and even on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 contended that even though the private contesting respondents were examined in lessor number of question papers but that was after relaxation of the relevant rules for selection and they were appointed for specific purpose of land acquisition and also for consolidation work. But later on representation the government decided to make them equivalent to the petitioners, i. e. Deputy Collectors and merged both the services into one cadre, And there was inordinate delay for more than 11 years and the petitioners were accordingly barred by laches. So far the order of merger was concerned the Division bench of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4244/88 has already refused the relief for quashing the order of merger as the same was barred by laches. That relief cannot be deemed to survive in the present petitions. So far the order of merger was concerned the Division bench of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4244/88 has already refused the relief for quashing the order of merger as the same was barred by laches. That relief cannot be deemed to survive in the present petitions. The State Government was competent to take policy decision merging two cadres together and in respect of policy decision, unless the same is arbitrary or mala fide, cannot be set aside or quashed by the High court. The preparation of seniority list declaring the private contesting respondents senior to the petitioners was perfectly correct and the substantial justice has been done by the same. These petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. The first point for determination is whether these petitions are barred by laches. Suffice it to say that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equitable jurisdiction and he, who seeks equity must do equity. In the matter of writ jurisdiction the petitioner must come to the Court at the earliest. In Ist writ petition (6423/90) the appointment of the respondents as Sub Deputy. Collectors was challenged after about 11 years. There is no explanation for the delay. 13. In Moon Mills Ltd. V/s. M. R. Meher, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1450, it was held that a writ of certiorari is legally a matter of sound discretion and will not be granted if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the other parties. In the instant case, after about 11 years the merger of Sub Deputy Collector and deputy Collector cannot be challenged. The inordinate delay or laches has not been explained. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the same is barred by laches. Similar view was taken much earlier in Lindsay petroleum Co. V/s. Hurd, (1874) 4 P. C.221. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Digambar, (1995) 4 S. C. C.683 reliance has been placed on Moon Mills Ltd V/s. M. R. Meher, AIR 1967 SC 1450 (supra) and the same principle has been reiterated and it was held that the petition is barred by laches and inordinate delay. V/s. Hurd, (1874) 4 P. C.221. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Digambar, (1995) 4 S. C. C.683 reliance has been placed on Moon Mills Ltd V/s. M. R. Meher, AIR 1967 SC 1450 (supra) and the same principle has been reiterated and it was held that the petition is barred by laches and inordinate delay. The High Court is not justified in exercising equitable writ jurisdiction and in that event, the petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief. 14. In Hansraj H. Jain V/s. State of maharashtra and others, (1993) 3 S. C. C.634, it has been held by the Apex Court that unless there is inordinate delay in land acquisition proceeding the completion of acquisition proceeding the completion of acquisition under Sec.11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be negatived on the ground of inordinate delay. But that was a case under the Land Acquisition act. Here the petitioners were aware about the date of merger and the order of the State Government holding the respondents to be senior to the petitioners. The petitioners in case they were sincere could bring the case at the earliest than after 11 years. The petitions are barred by laches. 15. The next question is whether the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th August, 1986 passed in c. W. J. C. No.2358 of 1981 by Hon ble s. Ali Ahmad, J. has been rendered per incuriam. In that case also the controversy was the merger of the Sub-Deputy collectors after holding ad hoc examination in view of the advertisement (Annexure 7 ). The petitioners in that case had applied and appeared at the said ad hoc examination and the result was published in January, 1974 and petitioners were appointed as Sub deputy Collectors by notification dated 30th May, 1974 but the Government resolved a policy decision on 24-3- 74 dated.30th May, 1974 and necessary order was issued to merge the cadres of sub Deputy Collectors and Deputy collectors, w. e. f. Ist April, 1974 and this was to be done in three phases. The petitioners case was that they must have been brought in the cadre of deputy Collectors on 1-4-1976 but that was not done rather the successful candidates of 22nd and 23rd batches of combined Competitive Examination were brought in the cadre of Deputy collectors. The petitioners case was that they must have been brought in the cadre of deputy Collectors on 1-4-1976 but that was not done rather the successful candidates of 22nd and 23rd batches of combined Competitive Examination were brought in the cadre of Deputy collectors. There was another order dated 28-5-78 (Annexure 3 in that petition)by which Sub Deputy Collectors, who were appointed on the basis of the ad hoc examinations, were also appointed as Deputy collectors with effect from 1-12-1977. Consequently these petitioners were below the candidates who were appointed as Sub deputy Collectors on the basis of 24th combined Competitive Examination. After hearing the counsel for the parties it was held that services of the petitioners from 30-5-74 to 30-11-77 cannot be ignored and they cannot be treated differently from those who were appointed on the basis of the 24th combined Competitive Examination, held by the Commission. for that reason the petition was allowed and respondents were directed to treat the petitioners as temporary Sub Deputy collectors appointed vide Annexure-1, dated 30-5-1974 and to bring them to the cadre of Deputy Collectors since 1-4-1976. In this way the petitioners got relief in that case and against that the deputy Collectors did not challenge that decision, rather in these petitions they are trying to challenge that decision of this Court which has become final. As the said decision was not challenged since 1986, we are not sitting in L. P. A. The legality of that case cannot be challenged. Otherwise also we are satisifed that correct view has been taken in that decision. Petitioners cannot re-open the same by the present petitions. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the decision dated 7-8-1986 passed in C. W. J. C. No.2358 of 1981 has been rendered as per incuriam. 16. Reverting to the next question as to whether the policy decision of the state Government can be challenged. In the instant case it has been made clear in the counter-affidavit and also by the statements of facts of the petitioners that as a policy decision the services of Sub Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector were merged. 16. Reverting to the next question as to whether the policy decision of the state Government can be challenged. In the instant case it has been made clear in the counter-affidavit and also by the statements of facts of the petitioners that as a policy decision the services of Sub Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector were merged. Under the special circumstances, selection of Sub Deputy Collectors was made on ad hoc basis and they were examined in lessor number of subjects than the Deputy Collectors examination held in accordance with Bihar Civil service (Executive Branch) and Bihar junior Civil Service (Recruitment)Rules. The merger of the Sub Deputy collectors and the Deputy Collectors was certainly a policy decision. As stated earlier a Division Bench of this court has already refused the relief of quashing the policy decision merging two cadres of Sub Deputy Collectors and Deputy Collectors in 2nd Writ petition (4244/88) on page 209 of the paper Book (Annexure-1 ). It was to the effect that about 14 years ago the two cadres were merged, the matter has been challenged and it was not proper to grant relief of quashing the merger of cadres after such an inordinate laches. As the petition was barred by laches and also that the same was a policy decision of the State Government hence relief was refused. In Union of India V/s. S. C. Dutta, AIR 1991 SC 363 , it has been held that the court must be slow, rather it need not interfere in the policy decision of the State government or the Parliament, unless it appears mala fide and arbitrary. Similar view was taken in Kumari shrilekha Vidyarthi V/s. State of Uttar pradesh and others, AIR 1991 SC 537 . But in the present cases the policy decision of the State Government merging two cadres of Sub Deputy collectors and Deputy Collectors cannot be said to be mala fide nor the same was arbitrary. 17. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case the question is whether this Court can exercise the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to grant relief cliamed for. In our considered opinion, the scope of judicial review is very limited unless it can be shown that the order of merger and policy decision of the State Government was either mala fide or arbitrary. In our considered opinion, the scope of judicial review is very limited unless it can be shown that the order of merger and policy decision of the State Government was either mala fide or arbitrary. Under the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the policy decision of merger was perfectly justified. In such matter somebody has to suffer. No policy can be so immune that it is for the benefit of everybody particularly in a democratic set up See Chief General manager, State Bank of India V/s. Suresh chandra Behara, (1995) 3 S. C. C.608. 18. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore I dont find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. These analogous petitions are devoid of merits. Consequently they are dismissed without any order as to costs.