JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "1 (a) For quashing of the letter issued vide Memo No. 4/Vidhi-08-129/10-1806(4) dated 19.12.2012 by Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the respondent State has not considered case of petitioner for his appointment on the post of Pharmacist. (b) For consequential benefits to the petitioner as the similarly situated persons are availing till date." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has basically concentrated on the aspect that the official respondents did not comply the direction given in the order dated 28.2.2012 in CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 filed by this very petitioner which was heard alongwith CWJC No. 8410 of 2008 filed by one Braj Bhushan Kumar and as such, the petitioner would be entitled for his appointment on the post of Pharmacist in view of his having secured more marks than the respondent no. 4. A further criticism has been made with regard to the respondent no. 4 being ineligible for appointment on the post of Pharmacist as because he had not passed the qualifying examination of Matriculation from Bihar School Examination Board and in fact he having passed Matriculation from West Bengal School Examination Board was not even eligible in terms of the advertisement. He has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the appointment of the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 on the post of Pharmacist was also bad because they had passed the examination of Diploma in Pharmacy on 2.9.1991, whereas, the last date of submission of the application was 10.6.1991 and thus, they, despite being ineligible in terms of the advertisement, were selected and appointed by the respondents. Proceeding ahead, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the appointment of the respondent no. 8 on the ground that he had not even submitted his application till last date of filing of the application i.e. 10.6.1991 and, as such, his case could not have been considered for appointment on the post of Pharmacist. 4. Proceeding ahead, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the appointment of the respondent no. 8 on the ground that he had not even submitted his application till last date of filing of the application i.e. 10.6.1991 and, as such, his case could not have been considered for appointment on the post of Pharmacist. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has not only supported the impugned order but, has also explained that whatever directions were given by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 28.2.2012 in the writ application filed by the petitioner, CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 were followed in letters and spirit and thus, the appointment made in the year 1992 of the private respondents could not be now questioned much less interfered by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 has submitted that in view of the earlier judgment dated 28.2.2012, it was not open for the petitioner to question their appointment, inasmuch as, a very limited remand was made by this Court for considering the case of the petitioner only against the respondent no. 4. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, on the other hand, has submitted that in view of the order of this Court, a Committee was constituted which had found that there was in fact a clerical error in recording the marks 'of the respondent no. 4 against one of the parameter i.e. technical qualification, an aspect which was also discussed in the earlier judgment of this Court. In this regard, he has supported the findings recorded by the official respondents with regard to respondent no. 4 having secured 60 marks in all justifying the selection and appointment on the post of Pharmacist. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to question the appointment of respondent nos. 5 to 8 after a lapse of more than twenty-two years. It is not a case of the petitioner that he had earlier also assailed the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 and a direction was made by this Court for looking into their appointments. In fact, this Court would find that when the petitioner filed his earlier writ application, CWJC No. 10711 of 2009, he had impleaded only respondent no. 4 of this case who incidentally was also respondent no. 5 to 8 and a direction was made by this Court for looking into their appointments. In fact, this Court would find that when the petitioner filed his earlier writ application, CWJC No. 10711 of 2009, he had impleaded only respondent no. 4 of this case who incidentally was also respondent no. 4 to CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 wherein his prayer was as follows:- "For quashing the appointment of Respondent No.4, on the post of Pharmacist, which is done by fraud committed in connivance of the office of Respondent, who prepared the list of the person who got 60 points after calculation of total points, they are appointed, but when the petitioner, who was also an applicant has got the list under Right to Information Act, he detected the fraud of Respondent No. 4, who was at SI. No. 8 in waiting list has got only 50 points, but wrongly total points was shown as 60 points and on that basis, although petitioner got 58 points, that also after cutting the marks of the written examination as in place of 15 marks only 10 marks is given and shown and further a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner in place of Respondent No. 4 and take an appropriate action against the concerned respondents and persons, who have done all these mischieves." 8. In view of the aforesaid prayer, when the petitioner did not even question the appointment of the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 in the earlier writ application which itself was filed after seventeen years of the appointment of respondent nos. 5 to 8, this Court cannot permit him now to raise any objection to the selection and appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8. 9. It has to be kept in mind that the writ petitioner himself had filed a supplementary affidavit in CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 wherein he had enclosed the entire information which he had received under the Right to Information Act with regard to selection process for the post of Pharmacist which was undertaken in the year 1991 and in the detailed chart, the names of all the candidates including the respondent nos. 5 to 8 were clearly mentioned. Thus, if the petitioner did not assail the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 were clearly mentioned. Thus, if the petitioner did not assail the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 in the earlier writ application and had left the matter confined to the respondent nos. 5 to 8, he cannot be allowed to now question the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 after a lapse of more than 22 years specially when the direction given by this Court was confined for examining the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 4. 10. Though, this Court would easily non-suit the petitioner in respect of. his assailing the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 only on account of delay but, in fairness to the candidature of respondent nos. 5 to 8, it has to be also kept in mind their registration made by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council in the month of September, 1991 in no view of the matter could have disentitled them from being considered for the post of Pharmacist which was advertised on 31.5.1991 wherein it was not the requirement that one must be registered as a Pharmacist from Pharmacy Council but, the only requirement was that they should be Matriculate as also to have passed the Pharmacist Training Course. Therefore, their registration which is always made by the Council after passing of the Pharmacist Examination in terms of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 can in no way go to show that they had not passed the Pharmacy Examination within the prescribed last date of filing of the application i.e. 10.6.1991. Registration by the Pharmacy Council is entirely 'different thing and cannot be compared with the date of passing of the Pharmacy Examination by the private respondent nos. 5 to 8. Though the Mark-sheet of the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have been brought on record which were issued on 2.9.1991 but that by itself cannot be a proof of the fact that the result of the examination was also declared on 2.9.1991. In fact, all these aspects individual or collectively go to show that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 had appeared in the 1998 examination and had cleared their last paper in the examination held in the month of January, 1991. Thus, in absence of the date of declaration of result brought forward by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 had appeared in the 1998 examination and had cleared their last paper in the examination held in the month of January, 1991. Thus, in absence of the date of declaration of result brought forward by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 had not passed their Diploma in Pharmacy Examination till the last date of filing of the application i.e. 12.6.1991 and consequently were ineligible for the post of Pharmacist. 11. The criticism of the appointment of respondent nos. 5 to 8 that they had not filed his application through employment exchange within prescribed period in fact would also not vitiate the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 8, inasmuch as, the advertisement had clearly mentioned that the application could be filed in the employment exchange up to 10.6.1991 and before the employer i.e. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur by 12.6.1991 so that they could appear in the interview to be held on 17.6.1991 at 10 AM in the ANM School, Samastipur. Thus, in view of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, this Court even otherwise would not find any error in entertaining the candidature of the respondent nos. 5 to 8. In any event the filing of applications by the Respondents 5 to 8 and their appearance in the walk-in-interview being a matter of procedure will never go to the root of the matter much less vitiate their appointment. Thus, the wholly belated challenge of the petitioner to their appointment made way back in the year 1992 cannot be entertained by this Court on his initiative specially when he had not assailed their appointment even when he had brought their registration certificate on record by way of supplementary affidavit in CWJC No. 10711 of 2009. 12. Additionally, this Court must find that the attempt of the petitioner to assail the. appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 is bad also on the ground that the appeal against the order of this Court dated 28.2.2012 in CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 was sought to be withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2013 in LPA No. 1635 of 2012 i.e. after filing of the present writ application on 1.2.2013. appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 is bad also on the ground that the appeal against the order of this Court dated 28.2.2012 in CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 was sought to be withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2013 in LPA No. 1635 of 2012 i.e. after filing of the present writ application on 1.2.2013. Thus, the petitioner having himself withdrawn the appeal, LPA No. 1635 of 2012 on a later date and in fact after filing of this writ application will be bound by the earlier order dated 28.2.2012 passed in his writ application CWJC No. 10711 of 2009. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 must be and is hereby rejected. 14. Coming to the issue of the impugned order passed by the respondents holding the respondent no. 4 to have secured 60 marks in all, including 15 in place of 5 for the technical qualification, it has to be kept in mind that this Court on the basis of the pleadings on record of CWJC No. 10711 of 2009 had remitted the matter back for a very limited enquiry as would be evident from the order dated 28.2.2002 relevant part whereof reads as follows:- "That there is a bona fide dispute as with regard to the appointment of the petitioners, which was denied to them despite their securing 59 and 58 marks respectively. If the respondent Shyam Sunder Singh with actually 50 marks has been appointed and has continued in service, there can be only two options with the Government either to cancel the, appointment of Shyam Sunder Singh so that no one having secured 58 and 59 like the petitioners can have a grievance of being left out despite being better on merit or also appoint the petitioners and/or others, who in general category had secured 50 marks and above as done in the case of respondent Shyam Sunder Singh. This Court has gone into the proceedings of the Selection Committee and would find that there were five members of the Selection Committee who had fixed the following parameters for award of marks on different heads, such as:- Written test 30 Interview 20 Educational Qualification 25 Technical Qualification 15 Special Qualification 5 Age 5 Total 100 The first two marks given in all the cases definitely refer to the written test and the interview and therefore, the question remains as to what parameters were followed for award of marks for Educational Qualification, Technical Qualification, Special Qualification and the Age. It is here that the dispute has been raised by Mr. Sinha saying that the Respondent Shyam Sunder Singh was entitled to get 15 marks on the head of Technical Qualification but he was given only 5 marks. In this context he has taken this Court to also marking of other similarly situated persons holding Bachelor of Pharmacy qualification alike Shyam Sunder Singh to show that they were given higher marks and therefore, Shyam Sunder Singh could not have been given 5 out of 15. Since Mr. Sinha does not question the marks secured by Shyam Sunder Singh in the written test, interview and educational qualification and as his case is cut out only on the head of technical qualification, this Court would direct the Director-in-Chief to consider the cases of all 25 candidates who have been appointed alongwith the cases of the petitioners and other applicants whose cases were considered earlier only for award of marks for qualification. If in the process of such reconsideration to be undertaken by the Committee headed by the Director-in-Chief with the available member(s) of the earlier Selection Committee and the present Civil Surgeon of Samastipur it is found that the respondent Shyam Sunder Singh could have secured 60, there would be no need to make any further exercise because in that case the petitioners having secured 59 and 58 would not qualify for their appointment but if it is found that the respondent Shyam Sunder Singh could have actually secured only 50, the Committee will take into account as to whether the petitioners and any other person having 59 and 58 can be appointed against the post which were available on the date of appointment of the respondent Shyam Sunder Singh. It is however made clear that no future vacancy shall be utilized for this purpose and the appointment of the petitioners and/or any other person who may become a better candidate than respondent Shyam Sunder Singh, will be made only if the vacancies of the post of Pharmacist in Samastipur District were there and for which the selection process was earlier undertaken. This exercise must be completed by the Director-in-Chief and his Committee within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It, however, goes without saying that if any person including Shyam Sunder Singh would be adversely affected by the findings and/or conclusion arrived by the Committee, he will be of course be given an opportunity of hearing by the Director-in-Chief before taking any such decision." 15. It is not in doubt that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, notices were given to all the 25 candidates by publishing it in the newspaper by the Director-in-Chief fixing the date 12.9.2012 which was the second date after the candidates had not appeared in course of enquiry on 20.7.2012. The Committee in fact consisting of Dr. Surrendra Prasad, Director-in-Chief, Dr. Madhurendra Kishore, Joint Director and one Dr. Jagdish Singh, Deputy Director of the Health Department had meticulously bone into the details with the help of two of the five members of the earlier Selection Committee of the year 1991, namely, Dr. N.L. Jha and Dr. B.N. Prasad as well as the present Civil Surgeon of Samastipur, namely, Dr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary and they had found that the persons possessing lesser qualification than the respondent no. 4 were also not given 5 out of 15 marks for technical qualification. In this respect, the case of Braj Bhushan Kumar, one of the two petitioners before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10711 of 2009 was itself examined and found that even when he had secured only 557 out of total 1200 i.e. 47% marks in the Pharmacy Examination he was given 15 marks for the technical qualification. In the same manner the case of the petitioner also was analyzed and it was found that when he had secured 572 out of 1200 i.e. 47.5% marks he too was given 14 marks under the head of technical qualification and thus there was no logic for the respondent no. In the same manner the case of the petitioner also was analyzed and it was found that when he had secured 572 out of 1200 i.e. 47.5% marks he too was given 14 marks under the head of technical qualification and thus there was no logic for the respondent no. 4 to have secured only 5 marks under the head of technical qualification specially when he had secured 3110 out of total 3600 i.e. 86% marks. The Committee therefore had concluded that as a matter of fact, the respondent no. 4 was entitled for being given 15 marks under the head of technical qualification and 5 marks written by' hand in the tabulation-sheet against his name was a clerical error. 16. This Court in view of the fact that the presence of at least 2 of the 5 members of the same Selection Committee namely, Dr. N.L. Jha and Dr. B.N. Prasad of the year 1991-92 had been secured by the Director-in-Chief and they also had in the joint deliberation as contained in Annexure-7 dated 30.10.2012 had gone to hold that the respondent no. 4 was entitled for grant of 15 marks in the technical qualification, will now find it difficult to accept the submission of the teamed counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 actually had secured 5 marks under the head of technical education and 50 marks in all. Thus, the findings that the respondent no. 4 actually had secured 60 marks being a pure question of fact based on the analysis made by the experts including two of them who were the members of the earlier Selection Committee of the year 1991 cannot now be reopened after a lapse of more than 22 years. It is true that a fraud can be detected and also nullified at any point of time but then whatever conclusions have been arrived by the Committee will automatically rule out the possibility of playing such fraud by respondent no. It is true that a fraud can be detected and also nullified at any point of time but then whatever conclusions have been arrived by the Committee will automatically rule out the possibility of playing such fraud by respondent no. 4 in any manner as would be apparent from the following extract of the report of the Committee:- ^^ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds mi;qDZr vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa o”kZ 1991&92 esa leLrhiqj ftys esa QekZflLV ds fu;qDr ds le; tks lnL; Fks mudk irk ,oa fu;qDr lHkh QekZflLV dk irk foHkkxh; i= la[;k 413¼4½ fnukad 14-3-2012 )kjk flfoy ltZu] leLrhiqj ls iqNk x;kA lkFk gh okafNr vfHkys[k dh ekax dh x;hA mDr ds vkyksd esa flfoy ltZu leLrhiqj )kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd rRdkyhu vof/k esa QekZflLV ds fu;qfDr ds le; ds nks lnL; Mk0 ,u0,y0 >k0] rRdkyhu mik/kh{kd] lnj vLirky] leLrhiqj] Mk0 ch0 ,u0 izlkn] rRdkyhu ojh; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ,oa izHkkjh] vij eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk irk mUgsa miyC/k gS rFkk tk¡p dh frfFk fu/kkZj.k gksus ij fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks mUgsa miyC/k jgus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA LokLF; funs’kky; ds i= la[;k 1075¼4½ fnukad 11-7-2012 )kjk ml le; ds fu;qDr lHkh QekZflLV dks i{k j[kus gsrq fnukad 20-7-2012 dks cqyk;k x;kA LokLF; foHkkxh; i= la[;k 1076¼6½ fnukad 11-7-2012 )kjk LokLF; foHkkx ds rhu lnL;h; lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k ftlesa v/kksgLrk{kjh ¼funs’kd izeq[k½ ds vfrfjDr Mk0 e/kqjsUnz fd’kksj] la;qDr funs’kd ,oa Mk0 txnh’k flag dks lnL; euksuhr fd;k x;k rFkk 20-7-2012 dks tk¡p frfFk fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA mDr i= dh izfrfyfi Mk0 ch0 ,u0 izlkn ,oa Mk0 ,u0 ,u0 >k tks 1991&92 esa lfefr ds lnL; Fks dks Hkh vkeaf=r fd;k x;k ,oa flfoy ltZu] leLrhiqj dks Hkh cqyk;k x;kA izsl foKfIr dk izdk’ku djrs gq, tk¡p dh frfFk 12-9-2012 fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA rRdkyhu vof/k esa fu;qDr QekZflLV esa ls vf/kdka’k mifLFkr gksdj viuk lk{; fn;sA mDr lk{; ds vkyksd esa lfefr ds lnL;ksa dh cSBd fnukad 30-10-2012 dks cqyk;h x;hA fnukad 30-10-2012 dks fuEu lnL; mifLFkr gq, & 1- Mk0 ljsUnz izlkn & funs’kd izeq[k] LokLF; foHkkx 2- Mk0 e/kqjsUnz fd’kksj izlkn & la;qDr funs’kd] LokLF; foHkkx 3- Mk0 txnh’k flag & mifuns’kd] LokLF; foHkkx 4- Mk0 vfuy dqekj pkS/kjh & flfoy ltZu leLrhiqj 5- Mk0 ,u0 ,y0 >k & ¼o”kZ 1991&92½ p;u lfefr ds lnL; 6- Mk0 ch0 ,u0 izlkn & ¼o”kZ 1991&92½ p;u lfefr ds lnL; lfefr ds lnL;ksa )kjk rRdkyhu vof/k esa rS;kj dh x;h es/kk lwph dk xgu fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA dzekad&41 ij Jh ‘;ke lqanj flag dk uEcj 15$12$18$5 ,oa tksM+ 60 fy[kk x;k FkkA Li”Vr% rduhdh ;ksX;rk dk uEcj ;fn 5 ekuk tkrk gS rks dqy ;ksx 50 gksrk gS] bl izdkj os fu;qfDr gsrq muds izkIrkad oknh ds izkIrkad ls de gksrk gS vkSj ;fn dqy izkIrkad 60 ekuk tkrk gS rks rduhdh uEcj 5 ds LFkku ij 15 gksuk pkfg,A bl rF; dh leh{kk ml le; ds fu;qDr vU; QekZflLVksa ds es/kk lwph ls dh x;h rFkk ik;k x;k fd Jh ‘;ke lqanj flag ls de izkIrkad okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh 5 uEcj rduhdh ;ksX;rk ds fy, ugha fn;k x;k gS ftlls Li”V gksrk gS fd Jh ‘;ke lqanj flag dks rduhdh ;ksX;rk ds fy, 15 vad fn;k x;k Fkk ijUrq Hkwyo’k mls 5 fy[kk x;k gSA mnkgj.kLo:i oknh Jh cztHkw”k.k dqekj dk QekZflLV ijh{kk esa 1200 esa 557 izkIrkad Fkk tks yxHkx 47 izfr’kr gS rFkk mlds fy;s mUgsa 15 uEcj feyk gS ogha fufru eqds’k dk izkIrkad 542@1200&47-5 izfr’kr ds fy;s 14 uEcj fn;k x;k gS ogh Jh ‘;ke lqanj flga dks 3110@3600 yxHkx 86 izfr’kr uEcj ds fy;s 5 uEcj fn;k tkuk ;qfDr laxr ugha yxrk gSA vr% lfefr vke jk; ls bl fu”d”kZ ij igq¡prh gS fd Jh ‘;ke lqnaj rRdkyhu vof/k esa fu/kkZfjr ekinaM ds vuqlkj 15 uEcj gksuk pkfg;s Fkk] Hkwyo’k 5 fy[kk x;k gksxk rFkk ;ksx esa 60 uEcj fn;k x;k mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA gLrk{kj gLrk{kj gLrk{kj 30-10-2012 30-10-2012 30-10-2012 Mk0 ,u0 ,y0 >k Mk0 ch0 ,u0 izlkn Mk0 vfuy dqekj pkS/kjh rRdkyhu lnL; rRdkyhu lnL; oRrZeku flfoy ltZu gLrk{kj gLrk{kj gLrk{kj 30-10-2012 30-10-2012 30-10-2012 Mk0 txnh’k flag Mk0 e/kqjsUnz fd’kksj izlkn Mk0 ljsUnz izlkn mifuns’kd] LokLF; foHkkx la;qDr funs’kd] LokLF; foHkkx funs’kd izeq[k] LokLF; foHkkxA 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the respondent no. 4 had secured 60 marks and thus higher, than the petitioner, which would justify the appointment of the respondent nos. 4 and denial of such appointment of the writ petitioner. 18. An ancillary submission that the respondent no. 4 did not pass his Matriculation Examination from Bihar School Examination Board will also be of no avail, inasmuch as, the Pharmacy Act itself lays down the qualification of Matriculation not necessary from Bihar School Examination Board but, from any other recognized Board: Thus, the Matriculation Examination passed by the respondent no. 4 from the West Bengal School Examination Board established by the Government of West Bengal cannot be held to be bad for his appointment on the post of Pharmacist. 19. This Court, therefore, does not find any error even in the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 4 and, in that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the appointment of the respondent no. 4 also must be held to be wholly misconceived. The selection process of the year.1991 having been completed in the year 1992 by way of appointment of the respondent no. 4 to 8 and others cannot be now reopened at the instance of the petitioner on a mere ipse dixit after expiry of a period of more than two decades. 20. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and is, accordingly, dismissed.