JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. The order under appeal in these appeals are very short. The writ court has dismissed the writ petitions from which these appeals arise by holding that the petitioners/appellants lack bona fide and they have filed these cases after final adjudication by this Court regarding the correctness and legality of the appointment process in relation to recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors by a judgment and order by this Court dated 25.11.2008 in the case of Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. alongwith analogous cases reported in 2008(4) PLJR 825, only because after the adjudication when the fresh results were published, these petitioners again remained unsuccessful. 3. On behalf of appellants it has been submitted before us that the model answers which were found defective and revised by experts as per decision of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) did not take care of all wrong answers in the model answers. According to appellants some model answers still remained defective and therefore fresh team of experts should be appointed by this Court to revise the model answers so that the marks allotted to candidates leading to revised results already published may further be revised. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants have tried to explain as to why the writ petitioners/appellants did not interfere or intervene in the earlier writ petitions which were decided by judgment and order dated 25.11.2008 which has attained finality, by claiming that model answers were called for by this Court in those cases but were kept in sealed cover and were inspected only by some of the counsel under the permission to the Court and hence the writ petitioners/appellants were not in a position to know the contents of the model answers so as to challenge any error therein. Their stand is that subsequently the model answers were obtained by them through Right to Information Act and only thereafter they could scrutinize and find out defect or errors in some more answers. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has submitted that the result of the recruitment tests were initially published on 30.5.2008 and immediately large number of writ petitions were filed in this Court in the month of June 2008 or soon thereafter. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has submitted that the result of the recruitment tests were initially published on 30.5.2008 and immediately large number of writ petitions were filed in this Court in the month of June 2008 or soon thereafter. Those cases were made analogous and after hearing the grievances raised on behalf of unsuccessful candidates in respect of model answers and question papers this Court permitted the parties to file affidavits, even called for the production of question papers and model answers in sealed cover. As per request made on behalf of the writ petitioners in those cases, some of the counsel were given opportunity to look into the question papers and model answers and on the basis of their inspection further facts were brought on record through affidavits and supplementary affidavits. The Court hearing those cases decided in favour of stand of the Commission that selected experts should look into the question papers and model answers and on their recommendations model answers may be corrected or modified. 6. It is not in dispute that even the name of the experts were disclosed to the Court through affidavit and no objection was taken in respect of names of the experts. The recommendations of the experts were accepted by the Commission leading to revision of model answers in respect of various model answers in different subjects. Those questions which were found to be the affected by wrong model answers were excluded from consideration and the total marks were reallocated against remaining questions. The re-evaluation was done in the light of such revised actions and on that basis, the writ petitions were finally disposed of by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2008 in the case of Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. analogous cases noticed above. 7. Learned Advocate General has objected to entertaining the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals mainly on the ground that the issues relating to correctness of the question papers and model answers was considered in detail by writ court after hearing all the parties including unsuccessful candidates like the writ petitioners in those cases. analogous cases noticed above. 7. Learned Advocate General has objected to entertaining the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals mainly on the ground that the issues relating to correctness of the question papers and model answers was considered in detail by writ court after hearing all the parties including unsuccessful candidates like the writ petitioners in those cases. It was further pointed out that from the averments made in CWJC No. 2023 of 2009 which has given rise to LPA No. 305 of 2009 it will transpire that writ petitioners No. 1 to 25 were parties to earlier writ petitions challenging the original result. According to learned Advocate General there is no private right involved in these cases and the only main issue is fairness and legality of the competitive examination held for the purpose of recruitment to public office of Sub-Inspectors of Police. Since large number of persons had filed several writ petitions and all similar grievances had been considered by the Court on earlier occasion, the judgment which has attained finality must be respected by all, more so when on that basis the recruitment process has already been completed and the selected candidates have joined and are undergoing training. He highlighted that affected party can always find out experts having difference of opinion on answers. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the grievances raised on behalf of appellants and to the submissions advanced on behalf of State and the Commission. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned Advocate General that the issues raised in these cases are same which have been considered and decided in the case of Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases. Merely because one or the other unsuccessful candidate obtained copies of model answers later, that would not keep alive the cause of action to challenge the fairness of a selection process in respect of public office again. The unsuccessful candidates including some of the appellants who were parties earlier had full opportunity to raise all facts and issues of law before the writ court which decided the case of Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases. The unsuccessful candidates including some of the appellants who were parties earlier had full opportunity to raise all facts and issues of law before the writ court which decided the case of Jay Shanker Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases. It would be contrary to public policy to allow successive writ petitions by different individuals to challenge same or similar issues relating to recruitment by the Commission through open competitive examination. Even if some of the present writ petitioners had not been parties to the earlier cases, their interest was sufficiently represented by other unsuccessful candidates and the issues decided after contest having attained finality must be respected and the parties must be held bound by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata and issue estoppel. In the academic world experts may continue to differ endlessly but the Courts have to bring a lis of present nature to finality of adjudication and that has already been done in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the writ court. The appeals are therefore dismissed but without costs.