JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Pashupati Nath Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M. N. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the U.P. Public Service Commission. 2. Facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows: The U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as the Commission) published an advertisement inviting applications for the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2013. The examination was to be conducted in three parts, preliminary, written examination and personality test. Petitioners applied in pursuance to the advertisement and participated in the preliminary examination. The preliminary examination comprised of two papers, (a) General Studies comprising of 150 questions & (b) Law comprising of 150 questions. The preliminary examination was held on objective type format. The result of the preliminary examination was declared after publication of the key answers. Large number of writ petitions leading being Writ Petition No. 51811 of 2013 were filed before the High Court challenging the key answers to the objective questions. It was the case of the petitioners that the preparation of the merit list in respect of the preliminary examination was vitiated because of such wrong key answers. After exchange of affidavits and after obtaining report of the experts on the subject, the Commission informed the Hon’ble High Court that a decision has been taken to delete all the objective questions, which had been reported to carry more than one correct answer as per two different conflicting expert reports and that they shall re-evaluate the answer sheets of all the candidates and declare the result afresh. 3. The High Court found the view taken by the Commission to be fair and just. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2013. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follows : “12. We, therefore, accept the decision taken by the Commission to delete as many as nine law questions (two were deleted earlier and seven subsequent to our order dated 26.9.2013). Likewise, we accept the decision of the Commission to delete six questions in the general knowledge paper (four questions were deleted earlier by the Commission and two questions were deleted pursuant to our order dated 26.9.2013). Likewise, we accept the decision of the Commission to delete six questions in the general knowledge paper (four questions were deleted earlier by the Commission and two questions were deleted pursuant to our order dated 26.9.2013). The Commission will evaluate the answers of the respective candidates on the basis of its decision, as approved herein above, and would publish a fresh merit list of the U.P. Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Examination 2013, in accordance with law, within three weeks from today, and would thereafter hold the Mains Examination, in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.” 4. Admittedly, this order has not been subjected to any further challenge and is binding upon the Commission. The Commission in compliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has deleted the questions, which carried more than two correct answers as per the conflicting reports of the experts and has declared the result of the preliminary examination on 19.12.2013 afresh. 5. Petitioners before this Court, who are seven in number and were not party to the earlier petition and were earlier declared successful on the basis of the evaluation of the OMR sheets with reference to the key answers given by the Commission. However, after the re-evaluation of the answer sheets after excluding the questions, which carried more than two correct answers as per the conflicting reports of the experts, they now stand excluded from the select list for participation in the main examination. Petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court challenging the result, which has now been declared by the Commission in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13.12.2013. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not party to the earlier Writ Petition No. 51811 of 2013 and, therefore, the judgment passed therein, is not binding upon them. It is then contended that the Apex Court in the case of Rajes Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 , has held that a party, who did not contribute in the preparation of erroneous key answers or to the distorted result may not be permitted to suffer. The Commission should have protected all those candidates, who were earlier declared successful in the preliminary examination and that equity lies in their favour. The Commission should have protected all those candidates, who were earlier declared successful in the preliminary examination and that equity lies in their favour. Reference is made to paragraph 21 of the judgment in the case of Rajes Kumar (supra). 7. Sri M.N. Singh, counsel for the Commission in reply submitted that the Commission has only complied with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the revised result, they may either seek recourse to filing of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court or they may seek review/recall of the judgment made in Writ Petition No. 51811 of 2013. 8. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and examined the records of the present writ petition. 9. At the very outset we may record that the Commission has acted in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court as per the order dated 13.12.2013 and has got the answer sheets of all the candidates, who had participated in the preliminary examination including the petitioners in this petition, re-evaluated after excluding the questions in respect whereof more than two correct answers had been reported by the experts. The decision of the Commission to exclude these questions has already been approved by the Division Bench of this Court as noticed herein above. 10. We, while sitting in a Co-ordinate Bench, cannot sit in judgment over the order of a Division Bench and, therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the decision of the Commission to declare the result afresh after excluding the questions referred to above. 11. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the directions issued by the High Court, they have two remedies available to him, (a) either to seek review/recall of the judgment on the ground that they were necessary party to the writ proceedings and in absence thereof the judgment be recalled or (b) to approach the Apex Court for challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court. 12. So far as the judgment in the case of Rajes Kumar (supra) is concerned, we find that in paragraph 21 of the said judgment the Apex Court has specifically noticed that the appellants had served the State of U. P. for nearly 7 years. It is in this background that the Apex Court had issued certain directions for protecting the appellants before it. 13. It is in this background that the Apex Court had issued certain directions for protecting the appellants before it. 13. It is settled law that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The law in that regard has been well-settled by the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd and others, 2003 (2) SCC 111 . The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another, AIR 2008 SCW 5817 . 14. For the reasons recorded above, we find no good ground to interfere with the decision of the Commission. 15. Writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above.