JUDGMENT S.N. JHA, J. 1. This writ petition on behalf of four petitioners has been filed for quashing the office order no. 144/Estt. contained in memo no. 853 dated 30.10.1996 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, by which they have been reverted from class III post to class IV post. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. 2. A limited competitive examination was held for giving promotion to class III post in terms of Government circulars providing for promotion of certain class IV staff to class III post, in the district of Sahebganj in all, 16 candidates including the four petitioners herein and Binod Kumar Sinha, Tarun Kumar Singh and Devanand Prasad appeared in the said examination. While the petitioners failed, the said three persons were declared successful and placed at sl. nos. 10, 9 and 7, respectively, in the merit list. Curiously, another combined competitive examination was held on 28.5.1994. The said Binod Kumar, Tarun Kumar Singh and Devanand Prasad did not appear in that examination obviously because they had already been declared successful in the first examination. In the second examination the petitioners were declared successful. A joint merit list on the basis of the results of the two examinations was prepared. In that merit list the said Binod Kumar Sinha, Tarun Kumar Singh and Devanand Prasad were shown below these petitioners. On 13.12.1994 the petitioners were appointed/ promoted to class III posts. 3. The said Binod Kumar Sinha, Tarun Kumar Singh and Devanand Prasad filed a writ petition CWJC No. 8609 of 1995 challenging the said promotion. This Court held that a joint merit list could not be prepared on the basis of the results of two separate competitive examinations and, therefore, the inter se ranking between the writ petitioners of that case and the petitioners herein (who were respondents nos. 3 to 6 in that case), was arbitrary. This Court noticed the fact that both the writ petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 (petitioners herein) had appeared in the first examination in which these petitioners had failed. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was directed to consider the case of Binod Kumar Sinha and said two others on the basis of the merit position in the panel which was prepared pursuant to the first competitive examination held on 27.4.1994. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj was directed to consider the case of Binod Kumar Sinha and said two others on the basis of the merit position in the panel which was prepared pursuant to the first competitive examination held on 27.4.1994. The Deputy Commissioner noted the fact that the said Binod Kumar Sinha and two others had already been found to be senior to the petitioners by this Court and accordingly directed that they be promoted against class III post. The claim of these petitioners for similar promotion has been rejected on the ground that as per the Government order vide Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department's letter no. 11243 dated 6.12.1995, appointments against class III post are now to be made through the Bihar Public Service Commission. 4. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioners is contrary to the direction of this Court in the previous writ petition. It was pointed out that while issuing direction to consider the case of Binod Kumar Sinha and others this Court did not quash the appointments which had already been made in favour of these petitioners. As a matter of fact, the authorities concerned were permitted to "take necessary steps" for appointing the said Binod Kumar Sinha only if they find that there is no vacancy for appointing them. Since vacancies in class III post are available as is evident from the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner itself, the petitioners should not have been reverted to class IV post. 5. The relevant part of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 31.7.1996 reads as follows:– "This Court, however, does not quash the appointments given in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 6, but if the authorities concerned find that there is no vacancy for appointing the petitioners, the authorities concerned are at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law keeping in mind that the petitioners rank higher in the merit list than respondent nos. 3 to 6." 6. According to me, a competitive examination having already been held and the results thereof published, without canceling the said examination or the result, the authorities were not justified in holding another examination. Obviously the second examination was held for the benefit of those who had already failed in the first examination. 3 to 6." 6. According to me, a competitive examination having already been held and the results thereof published, without canceling the said examination or the result, the authorities were not justified in holding another examination. Obviously the second examination was held for the benefit of those who had already failed in the first examination. It is to be kept in mind that the second examination was held within one month of the first examination without assigning any reason. However, this aspect of the matter was not gone into by this Court in the previous writ petition. In my opinion, this could be a ground to hold that the promotion of the petitioners was not valid. But as noticed above, the appointment made in favour these petitioners were not interfered with. While considering the grievance of the writ petitioners of that case, only a direction was issued that if there is no vacancy against which they can be promoted, the authorities concerned may take necessary steps. The vacancies admittedly being available, in my opinion, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in reverting the petitioners to class IV post. Taking any other view would be contrary to the judgment of this Court which binds the Deputy Commissioner as much as it binds the petitioners. The ground that in view of the Government order dated 6.12.1995 appointment against class III posts are now to be made through Public Service Commission is not applicable in the present case. The examination had been held in April, 1994 itself, the Government decision came later. Secondly, if by virtue of the said Government order, these petitioners were not to be appointed/promoted against class III posts, Binod Kumar Sinha, Tarun Kumar Singh and Devanand Prasad would also stand on the same footing. The Deputy Commissioners cannot take shelter under the Government order to deny appointment to the petitioners alone and not to the said Binod Kumar Sinha and others. Besides, this point was available to the Deputy Commissioner to canvass before this Court in the previous case, having not done so he cannot be allowed to reject the claim of the petitioners on that ground. In my opinion, in view of the availability of the vacancies and the fact that the appointments of the petitioners was not touched in express words, by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner has committed error in reverting them to class IV posts. In my opinion, in view of the availability of the vacancies and the fact that the appointments of the petitioners was not touched in express words, by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner has committed error in reverting them to class IV posts. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed the order no. 144 dated 30.10.1996 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) to the extent the petitioners have been reverted to class IV post, is quashed. There will be no order as to cost.