Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification of the health Department contained in its memo No.219 (17) dated 15th July, 19% by which his posting as Assistant professor, Neo-Natology in the Patna medical College Hospital (for short, pmch) has been cancelled. He has made out a case that even though his posting against the aforesaid post was quashed by this Court in CWJC No.9806 of 1992, in view of the judgment of this Court in CWJC Nos.261 of 1992 and 1094 of 1991, holding that award of rural points was arbitrary, and as per revised panel prepared in the light of the said judgment, he was re-posted on the post (of Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology, PMCH), but the same has been cancelled without any opportunity of hearing to him. The dispute relating to appointment of Assistant Professor in Neo-Natology from the 1990 panel has rather long history. It is unfortunate that the full material facts have not been stated in the writ petition nor any person likely to be affected by the result of this case has been made party. One Dr. Raja Ram Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as intervenor) has filed intervention application (IA No.550 of 19%) stating the relevant missing facts. The facts of the case, as disclosed in the said intervention-application as well as the writ petition, may shortly be stated as follows. 2. On 22nd May, 1990 advertisement was published inviting applications for preparation of panel with respect to junior teaching posts in different medical colleges and hospitals of the State. A panel, commonly known as 1990 Panel, was prepared in the light of the terms and conditions of the said advertisement. While the petitioner was placed at sl. No.10 the intervenor was placed at sl. No.4 in the said panel. We are not concerned with the other empanelists for the purpose of this case. A brief reference to some of them, however, shall be made later at the appropriate place in this judgment. Despite the lower placement, the petitioner was appointed to the post of assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in pmch on 2nd September, 1992. His appointment/posting was challenged by the intervenor and one Dr. Neelam verma (placed at sl. No.5 in the aforesaid 1990 Panel) in CWJC Nos.9806 of 1992 and 6589 of 1993, respectively. Despite the lower placement, the petitioner was appointed to the post of assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in pmch on 2nd September, 1992. His appointment/posting was challenged by the intervenor and one Dr. Neelam verma (placed at sl. No.5 in the aforesaid 1990 Panel) in CWJC Nos.9806 of 1992 and 6589 of 1993, respectively. By common judgment and order dated 28th February, 1994 this Court quashed the impugned notification dated 2nd September, 1992. The respondents were directed to take fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the finding recorded in the judgment within a period of 60 days. It may be useful to quote a passage from the aforesaid judgment as hereunder:- "17. The panel clearly showed respondent Dr. Ajay Pratap at serial No.10 and the petitioner Dr Raja Ram Prasad singh against serial No.4 and petitioner dr. Neelam Verma at serial No.5. Nothing was submitted by the Respondents that the marks were incorrectly allotted to these petitioners. Respondent Dr. Ajay pratap was admittedly placed much below the petitioners. Even the authorities in the health Department who were recording the minutes as contained in Annexure-5 had not supported the claim of respondent Dr. Ajay Pratap earlier. Thus I do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Mahto but find merit in the submissions of Mr. Sinha and Mr. Singh and accept them. " 3 In the meantime, it appears that a dispute arose relating to rural points. In the aforesaid advertisement, stipulation had been made, as before, for awarding the rural points in respect of postings in rural areas. One Dr. Sheela sinha (placed at sl. No.2 in the aforesaid 1990 Panel) filed CWJC No.1094 of 1991. That writ petition was heard along with CWJC No.261 of 1992 preferred by one Dr. Rameshwar Prasad (placed at sl. No.3 in the 1990 Panel)and the intervenor herein. According to the intervenor, what the writ petitioners in CWJC No.261 of 1992 had questioned was awarding points to respondent No.4 (of that case) with respect to her post graduate degree obtained by her from United Kingdom and with respect to her posting as Registrar whether awarding rural points was correct or not, was not the subject matter of that writ petition. However, both the writ petitions were decided by common judgment dated 20th May, 1994. However, both the writ petitions were decided by common judgment dated 20th May, 1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that rural posting was an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of appointment to the junior teaching post and therefore giving points on the basis of such posting was arbitrary. The aforesaid judgment, was later considered and explained by a Division bench of this Court (of which I was a member) in CWJC Nos.7757 of 1991 and 8293 of 1991. It was held, vide judgment dated 27th April, 1995, that the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge could only have prospective effect. Although the State Government had consequently issued corrigendum and deleted the relevant clause from the Advertisement, such decision could not have any retrospective effect so as to take away the consequences or the benefits of rural posting. Another learned Single Judge of this court took the same view in CWJC No.9721 of 1994 decided on 28th May, 1995. However, it appears, the 1990 panel had been revised in the light of the judgment of the learned Single judge aforesaid in the meantime and the petitioner was again appointed/posted as Assistant Professor, neo-Natology in PMCH on 6th July, 1995. 4. It may be stated here that the state Govt. has since taken a policy decision, after due consideration of the various judgments, that the candidates would be entitled to points with respect to rural posting upto 20th May, 1994, i. e. upto the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as had been clarified and held by the Division Bench in CWJC Nos.7757 and 8293 of 1991 (supra ). It may also be mentioned here that the earlier decision of the State government deleting rural points has been separately challenged in this Court in CWJC Nos.4577 of 1995 and 5433 of 1995 which are pending consideration. 5. In the meantime, when the judgment and order of this Court in CWJC no.9806 of 1992, holding the appointment/posting of the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in PMCH was illegal and quashing the same, was not being given effect to, the Intervenor filed a contempt petition being MJC no.1159 of 1994. After some dilly dallying the matter for quite some time the state Government finally came with the notification cancelling appointment of the petitioner on 15th July, 19%. After some dilly dallying the matter for quite some time the state Government finally came with the notification cancelling appointment of the petitioner on 15th July, 19%. It is this notification dated 15th July, 19% which has been challenged in the writ petition. After the aforesaid notification was issued the contempt petition was disposed of on 16th July, 19%, as the order of this Court stood complied with. Thereafter, it may be stated, the intervenor has been appointed/posted as Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in pmch on 2nd November, 19% under notification No.405 (17) of the Health department. 6. Most of the facts which have been stated hereinabove, have been suppressed in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 16th August, 19% and after the aforesaid notification dated 2nd November, 19% was issued, on incomplete facts the petitioner got an interim order from this Court on 5th december, 19% to the effect that he will continue to perform his duties against the post which he was holding prior to 15th July, 1996. When, however, full facts were brought to the notice of this Court through the intervention-application the said interim order was recalled on 18th December, 1996. The respondents were directed to give an appropriate posting to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted as Medical Officer in Rajbanshi Nagar Hospital at Patna. He has since been relieved from the PMCH and joined the said Rajbanshi Nagar Hospital on 6th January, 1997. 7. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that intervenor being party to the cwjc No.261 of 1992 which was decided with a finding that points cannot be allowed for rural postings, he is bound by the judgment. The submission, according to me, is of no avail to the petitioner. Firstly, the question as to whether the candidates were entitled to points for rural postings or not was not the subject matter of CWJC No.261 of 1992. The intervenor was no doubt a copetitioner in that case but no such controversy was raised by him. Secondly, even if it be assumed that the judgment, being common judgment, is binding on him, judgment of the learned Single judge can only be applied and given effect to prospectively. This is what was decided by the Division Bench and has since been accepted by the State Govt. under its policy decision. Secondly, even if it be assumed that the judgment, being common judgment, is binding on him, judgment of the learned Single judge can only be applied and given effect to prospectively. This is what was decided by the Division Bench and has since been accepted by the State Govt. under its policy decision. Thirdly, the intervenor has challenged the correctness of the decision in CWJC No.261 of 1992 in lpa No.136 of 1994, which is pending. Besides, as noticed above, two other writ petitions, namely, CWJC nos.4577 of 1995 and 5433 of 1995 in which the very deletion of rural points had been challenged, are also pending. Whatever may be the result of the said pending cases there cannot be any doubt that in terms of the judgment of the division Bench which has not been challenged by any aggrieved person and has thus become final by lapse of time, the intervenor was entitled to rural points upto 20th May, 1994. 8. Counsel for the petitioner referred to writ petition filed by the Intervenor being CWJC No.5278 of 1995 and submitted that the intervenor having challenged the re-appointment/re-posting of the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Neo-Natology in pmch pursuant to the above-said notification dated 6th July, 1995, which is pending, the respondents should not have taken the impugned decision and cancelled his (petitioner) appointment/posting. 9. The submission of the Counsel is wholly misconceived. It is clear from the narration of the facts that the impugned notification has been issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court in CWJC No.9806 of 1992 in which both the intervenor and the petitioner were parties. The aforesaid judgment was not challenged by the petitioner. No doubt, a controversy arose as to whether the 1990 Panel should be recast in the light of the judgment of this Court in cwjc Nos.261 of 1992 and 1094 of 1991 (supra ). But that controversy has now been set at rest, at least with respect to the period upto 20th May, 1994. There cannot be any doubt, in the circumstances, that the intervenor was entitled to rural points in terms of the advertisement and the panel had been correctly framed. In any view, the impugned notification having been issued pursuant to an inter-parte judgment and order, neither the respondents nor the petitioner could/can escape the effect of the said judgment and order. There cannot be any doubt, in the circumstances, that the intervenor was entitled to rural points in terms of the advertisement and the panel had been correctly framed. In any view, the impugned notification having been issued pursuant to an inter-parte judgment and order, neither the respondents nor the petitioner could/can escape the effect of the said judgment and order. Since the notification has been issued in compliance with the Courts order and in the background of facts shortly indicated hereinabove, i do not find any error there in. 10. As stated above, the petitioner suppressed several material facts and on incomplete/suppression of material facts also got an interim order in his favour, which was immediately recalled, no sooner the full facts were brought to the notice of the Court. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, is quite frivolous and vexatious and it is a fit lease, where cost should be awarded i against the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs.1000/- (One thousand) only, payable to the Intervenor. Petition Dismissed.