JUDGEMENT S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Twelve petitioners have joined this writ petition with the prayer that the judgment dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure-9), passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16819 of 2008 (Prabhat Kumar V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), may be reheard and reviewed, inter alia, on the ground they were not parties to the proceedings, and also because of non-consideration of certain relevant aspects of the matter. It is submitted in the alternative that the ratio of the judgment should be confined to the cadre of employees with which it was concerned, and should not be made applicable to the other categories of employees covered by the same advertisement. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Board issued an advertisement bearing Employment Notice No. 5 of 2007 (Annexure-1), which appeared in the local dailies on January 2008, inviting applications from different categories of the employees. The following extract from the advertisement would be helpful. (Table) One Prabhat Kumar was a candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO cadre) (Mechanical). The selection process comprises of three parts. The first part is of written test, and the second part is of viva-voce test. The third and the final phase comprises of Computer Literacy test wherein the candidate has to score a minimum of 50 qualifying marks which shall not be added to the final/total marks obtained by the candidates. In other words, the candidates who have crossed the first two phases have only to score the minimum qualifying marks in the Computer Literacy Test to become eligible for the appointment. Prabhat Kumar appeared in the first two parts of the selection process and was placed at serial No. 14 of the merit list, indicating the combined effect of the first two parts of the selection process. There are twelve vacancies for the category of Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) (Mechanical). The respondent authorities had decided to invite like number of candidates for the last phase of the selection process, namely, Computer Literacy Test, as a result of which the petitioner was not called for the last phase of the selection process leading to C.W.J.C. No. 16819 of 2007. The respondent authorities had decided to invite like number of candidates for the last phase of the selection process, namely, Computer Literacy Test, as a result of which the petitioner was not called for the last phase of the selection process leading to C.W.J.C. No. 16819 of 2007. The same was allowed by the judgment dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure-9), wherein it was held that in view of the decisions of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is well settled that 2 to 3 times of the number of posts should be called for viva-voce. Applying that principle of law, the third phase of the selection process was set aside. The respondent-board was directed to frame a fresh policy decision whereby candidates 2 to 3 times the number of posts were to be called for the last phase of the selection process. I am informed at the Bar that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment and the same has attained finality. The Board has issued the impugned notice whereby the third phase of the selection process with respect to all the four categories have been set aside, and a fresh Computer Literacy Test has been notified. 4 While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners were not parties in C.W.J.C. No. 16819 of 2008, and, therefore, that judgment cannot be made applicable to their cases. He next submits that the same may be applied to the category of Assistant Executive Engineers (G.T.O. cadre) (Mechanical) only. He, therefore, prays that the judgment may be recalled, the petitioners and others concerned may be heard, and that matter may be disposed of by a fresh judgment. He relies on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 . Counsel for the petitioners submits in the alternative that most of the petitioners have cleared all the three tests of the selection process and, therefore, there is no occasion to apply the principle of the judgment in Prabhat Kumar (supra) to the three other categories of employees. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned action. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned action. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the parties. In so far as petitioners first contention is concerned, the Board or any such person has not chosen to assail the same in appeal and it has attained finality. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to recall the same for a fresh decision. 7. In so far as the second contention is concerned, I am convinced that the ratio of the judgment is based on the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the principle is equally applicable to the other three categories of employees who are covered by the same Employment Notice No. 05 of 2007. The circumstances indicated in paragraph-5 of the judgment in Prabhat Kumar (supra) is equally applicable to the present petitioners. In that view of the matter, I do not find any fault in the impugned notice in applying the ratio of the judgment of Prabhat Kumar (supra) to the other three categories of employees. I would go to the extent of saying that the Board has acted with fairness and sagacity in applying the principle to similar circumstanced categories. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed.