Order Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners who are private-respondent nos.5 to 9 in this appeal, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and learned counsel for the State. 2. In view of the office note dated 13.10.2014, the notice sent to respondent no.6 is deemed to be validly served. I.A. No.4129 of 2014 3. This interlocutory application has been filed in this appeal for condoning the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal. 4. It is stated that these appellants were not made parties in the writ proceedings though they were to be adversely affected by any order passed therein. Having come to know of the judgment of this Court in the writ proceedings, this appeal has been filed. 5. Having considered the matter, the delay in filing the appeal is, thus, condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.4129 of 2014 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 4130 of 2014 6. This interlocutory application has been filed for staying the process of selection of private-respondent nos.5 to 9, who were writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.2410 of 2013, as also for stay of the judgment and order dated 23.10.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2410 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge, which is under appeal. 7. In our opinion, granting stay and postponing the final hearing of this appeal would unnecessarily delay and complicate the matter, which is already delayed by over a decade. We have, accordingly, heard learned counsels at length with their consent for final disposal of this Intra Court appeal at this stage itself. 8. It appears that on 16.11.2003, the State Government requisitioned the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter in short “BPSC”) for selecting and recommending Officers of Class-II for appointment in Animal Husbandry Department. There were 225 vacancies notified. The eligibility criteria, as fixed by the State, was that the applicant must be a graduate in veterinary science and must have completed six months internship. Ultimately, on 29.11.2004 the BPSC issued the advertisement, being advertisement no.11 of 2004, in this regard fixing 06.01.2005 as the last date for filing applications. Meaning thereby that only those candidates could apply who were graduated in veterinary science and had completed their six months internship by 06.01.2005. Ultimately, on 29.11.2004 the BPSC issued the advertisement, being advertisement no.11 of 2004, in this regard fixing 06.01.2005 as the last date for filing applications. Meaning thereby that only those candidates could apply who were graduated in veterinary science and had completed their six months internship by 06.01.2005. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 16.12.2004 i.e. long before the last date of filing of application, by which the requirement of completing six months internship prior to the last date of filing application was extended to the date of interview of candidate. Thus, effectively the eligibility criteria now was that an applicant must be a graduate in veterinary science and as on the date of his interview he should have completed six months internship. This is relevant because in the selection process that was set up by the BPSC there was no written examination. All valid applicants had to be called for interview. In due course, interview dates were announced as 04.04.2005 to 03.05.2005. Thus, effectively the last date for acquiring full eligibility was fixed as 03.05.2005. There were about 718 applicants for the 225 posts. Interviews were accordingly held and a merit list was prepared by the BPSC. The merit list so prepared on 26.05.2005 was then sent to the State for appointment. State did not take cognizance of the same and did not make any appointment. This brought a group of selected candidates to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6253 of 2006 (Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) seeking appointment as per selection. In those writ proceedings, a stand was taken by the State Government that the selection process was vitiated for various reasons. Apart from other serious allegations, it was pointed out that as the number of applicants were above 500 BPSC ought to have conducted written examination as was provided. Thus, on this basis, giving this finding, this Court refused to issue mandamus for appointment from the select list. This Court by judgment and order dated 08.08.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6253 of 2006 held thus:- “…..In those circumstances, the State Government is directed to submit a fresh requisition to B.P.S.C. for 225 such Officers within a period of four weeks from today and B.P.S.C. is directed to select 225 such Officers only amongst those candidates whose candidature was accepted by B.P.S.C. in terms of the previous advertisement. It is made clear that B.P.S.C. while selecting those 225 candidates shall act in accordance with law and shall make an endeavour to select the right persons for the posts in question.” 9. As we understand, the import of the judgment is that BPSC would now take up the matter of selection from amongst those eligible candidates and proceed as per the previous advertisement. 10. As noted above, the effect of the previous advertisement and the corrigendum issued thereto was that eligibility had to be completed in all respects by 03.05.2005, which was the last date fixed for the interview. This judgment cannot be read as making those persons who were ineligible for that selection process to become eligible in the selection process that is to be carried out again. The selection process was then undertaken by the BPSC by holding written examination. 11. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners who are private-respondents in this appeal, submitted that this Court directed in the said writ petition that all 718 applicants be considered. We are afraid that is not the import of the judgment. There were 718 applicants but that was the total number without scrutinizing them for eligibility. When BPSC scrutinized for eligibility, it found the five writ petitioners ineligible because of simple reason that they were completing their internship after the last date i.e. after 03.05.2005, which was the last date of interview. All of them were completing their internship in the end of June, 2005. They were, thus, ineligible in all respects as per the first advertisement and the corrigendum issued. Apprehending that they would not be selected, they filed the writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.2410 of 2013, before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that as the examination or selection process had been reinitiated, the eligibility would be considered up to the date when the fresh notice was published in 2012. Effectively, the learned Single Judge made those persons eligible who were otherwise ineligible as per the earlier advertisement and corrigendum. 12. Mr. Lalit Kihsore, learned senior counsel appearing for the BPSC, submits that they have acted in accordance with the later judgment of the learned Single Judge in the second round of writ petition. Effectively, the learned Single Judge made those persons eligible who were otherwise ineligible as per the earlier advertisement and corrigendum. 12. Mr. Lalit Kihsore, learned senior counsel appearing for the BPSC, submits that they have acted in accordance with the later judgment of the learned Single Judge in the second round of writ petition. Candidates who would not be and were not eligible as per earlier advertisement but had applied nevertheless were considered eligible in view of the later judgment effectively pushing out the present appellants who were eligible otherwise. This is what that brought the present appellants to this Court because the consequence is that though these appellants were eligible as per the original advertisement, consequent to ineligible candidate being permitted to participate, they have been excluded from the select list. 13. Having considered the matter, in our view, the judgment and order dated 23.10.2013 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No.2410 of 2013 cannot be sustained. The notice that was issued by the BPSC in the year 2012 was clearly pursuant to mandate given by this Court in the first writ petition and the BPSC was bound by the directions contained therein. The directions have been quoted above. The directions were to consider the candidates as per the earlier advertisement i.e. advertisement no.11 of 2004 and the corrigendum which is part of the advertisement itself. When the learned Single Judge in the first writ petition referred to 718 applications, as noted above in this order of ours, they were unscrutinized 718 applications that had been received. The five writ petitioners of the present proceedings were not qualified and were ineligible as per that advertisement or the corrigendum issued there-under because they had not completed their internship by 03.05.2005 as provided there-under. There is no dispute on this account. It is wrong to say or wrong to assume that this Court in the first writ order ever made those who were ineligible as per the first advertisement to become eligible now. Thus, by extending the period to complete eligibility to 2012, this Court (learned Single Judge in the later writ proceedings) has changed the earlier judgment under which the present fresh notice was itself issued. That could not be done. Thus, by extending the period to complete eligibility to 2012, this Court (learned Single Judge in the later writ proceedings) has changed the earlier judgment under which the present fresh notice was itself issued. That could not be done. The notice/advertisement issued in 2012 in itself says that it is being issued pursuant to mandate given by this Court in the earlier writ petition, which mandate, as we have noted above, stipulated the last date for eligibility as 03.05.2005. That could not be extended by anyone. Therefore, the judgment and order under appeal being dated 23.10.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2410 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge in this Intra Court appeal cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. All candidates who were ineligible as on 03.05.2005 have to be excluded from selection process. BPSC is thus directed to revise the select list in accordance with the judgment and order of ours and forward it to the State without any further delay so that the long standing appointment process, which is late by almost a decade, may be finalized. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.