ORDER : S.B. Majmudar, J. We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. In our view, no case is made out for entertaining these review petitions. The reasons are obvious. The review petitioners who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court and who were respondents in the civil appeals before this Court, had brought in challenge the result of the selection of candidates for the post of Principal and other posts pursuant to the selection held by the College Service Commission duly constituted under the relevant statutory provisions. This Court while allowing the appeals against the judgment of the High Court which had allowed their writ petitions, took the view that original Writ Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 should not have been permitted to agitate the question as they had appeared in the selection process, took a chance and had lost. 2. In the review petitions it is submitted that only Petitioners 1 and 2 had appeared in the selection process. Petitioner 3 had not appeared in the selection process. In our view, this aspect of the matter will not have any effect on the ultimate decision rendered by this Court as all the petitioners were having a common cause and had filed one and the same petition. If Petitioner 3 had not appeared for the interview, he had no occasion to contest the result of the interview proceedings. 3. The other grievance made is that Petitioner 4 was wrongly assumed to be not a relevant competitor not being a professor. It has to be kept in view that such a contention was never canvassed before this Court when the appeal was heard. Even no contention was raised about Petitioner 3 to have not appeared in the selection process. All these contentions, therefore, which are raised for the first time in the review proceedings, cannot be countenanced. The moot question would arise whether in the light of the advertisement issued, original Writ Petitioner 4 Devendra Narain Singh could have at all applied as a candidate. In any case if he had not applied as a candidate he would stand on the same footing as Petitioner 3 and could not have challenged the selection process when he was not in the arena of contest. 4. In any case if he had not applied as a candidate he would stand on the same footing as Petitioner 3 and could not have challenged the selection process when he was not in the arena of contest. 4. One additional ground raised in the review proceedings pertains to the observations of this Court in the impugned judgment that the College Service Commission was constituted by the University concerned. It has been pointed out that the Governor of Bihar in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 3 of the Bihar State University Constituent Colleges Service Commission Act, 1987 appointed the Chairman and the members of the Commission. 5. In our view, how the Commission was appointed is not a relevant consideration for examining the locus standi of the review petitioners who were original writ petitioners in moving the writ petitions before the High Court. Hence this contention also has no effect on the texture of the judgment sought to be reviewed being totally an irrelevant one. 6. In the result, the review petitions are dismissed on merits. Review petitions dismissed.