Order I.A. No. 287 of 2008: In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer, whereby they have sought quashing the result published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short JPSC) in daily newspaper, 'PRABHAT KHABAR' on 15th January, 2008 and till the pendency of the writ petition, the .appointment process of Lecturers published by the JPSC in the said daily newspaper be stayed/kept in abeyance. 2. It has been stated that earlier the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the respondents-universities to forward and requisition the identified backlog reserved posts/vacancies of lecturers lying vacant since last many years in the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Physically Handicapped. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.7 as also the JPSC contested this application. It has been stated that the same petitioner had filed another writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2008, challenging the result of successful candidates for appointment of Lecturers selected by the JPSC. The petitioner has made this prayer after filing of the instant writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner has already challenged the result; there cannot be two parallel proceedings for the same relief and if this interlocutory application is allowed, there may be two different orders and it will be against the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the petitioner has already challenged the result of the same examination conducted by the JPSC, there is no use of addition of the said prayer, which would amount to repetition of the prayer in the writ petition. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that for the same prayer, there cannot be two parallel proceedings. 5. In view thereof, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 287 of 2008) is not maintainable and the same is, hereby, rejected. I.A. No. 594 of 2007 6. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer, whereby he has sought quashing of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2007, published on 30th January 2007, in daily newspaper, 'HINDUSTAN', Ranchi Edition (Annexure-12). 7. I.A. No. 594 of 2007 6. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer, whereby he has sought quashing of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2007, published on 30th January 2007, in daily newspaper, 'HINDUSTAN', Ranchi Edition (Annexure-12). 7. It has been stated that earlier the petitioner had filed the writ petition directing the respondents to declare the backlog vacancies in respect of reserved quota for the purpose of appointment and to fill up the backlog vacancies after roster clearance. The University subsequent to the filing of this writ petition advertised the post, but the advertisement is not in accordance with law and as such, the same is" illegal and liable to be quashed. 8. Mr. S. Piparwall, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent NO.7, and Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the JPSC, contested the petitioner's prayer and submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2008, which is fully based on the terms of the advertisement. The petitioners have claimed relief on the basis of the said advertisement. They cannot now challenge the advertisement. The prayer for addition and amendment cannot be allowed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer, whereby it has sought quashing the advertisement of the post of Lecturers for appointment. It has been submitted that the advertisement is not in accordance with law. Since the advertisement has been published during the pendency of the writ petition, the proposed amendment has been sought in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the same parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is based on the same factual foundation and the same does not change the nature/. character of the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though contested the petitioner's claim on merit have not contradicted the said contentions that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the writ petition and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. 11. In view thereof, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 594 of 2007) is allowed. Amendment prayed for in the writ petition is allowed. 12. I.A. No. 594 of 2007 stands disposed. W.P.{C) No. 223 of 2007: 13. 11. In view thereof, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 594 of 2007) is allowed. Amendment prayed for in the writ petition is allowed. 12. I.A. No. 594 of 2007 stands disposed. W.P.{C) No. 223 of 2007: 13. Put up this case in usual course.