JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have seriously suspected the fairness of the preliminary examination which was held for appointment of Sub-Inspectors and therefore have challenged the result of the preliminary examination which was published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission” for short). 3. The only ground raised in the present writ petitions is the leakage of question papers of the preliminary examination. 4. Several writ petitions were filed at different stages of the examination, alleging unfairness and the Commission not taking into account the correct perspective over the roster of reservation. 5. It may be noted that a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgement dated 31.10.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17302 of 2018, relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Richal Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in [ (2018) 8 SCC 81 ], issued several directions to the Commission to ensure probity and fairness in the mains examination. For brevity, these directions are not being reproduced in the present order. However, while giving those directions, the learned Single Judge but categorically excluded the operations / applications of the aforesaid directions with respect to the preliminary examination and clearly directed that those directions were to be carried out in the mains examination only. 6. It further appears that the directions were only with respect to the mains examination because in the present set of writ petitions, the challenge is exclusively to the result of the preliminary examinations. 7. It is also relevant here to note that a prayer for interim order made in the present set of writ petitions was not considered by the Bench and it was observed that the petitioners may, if they so desire, approach the Apex Court for any appropriate order as the learned Single Judge was made to understand that the Apex Court was monitoring the appointment process in the case of Manish Kumar Versus Union of India and others [Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013]. 8. One of the applicants, in the meantime preferred Civil Appeal No. 10242 of 2018 (Sanjeet Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.) challenging the refusal of any interim order with respect to the preliminary examination. 9. 8. One of the applicants, in the meantime preferred Civil Appeal No. 10242 of 2018 (Sanjeet Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.) challenging the refusal of any interim order with respect to the preliminary examination. 9. This Court has been shown the order of the Supreme Court whereby the conduct of the Commission in not appearing in the matter (WP (C) No. 183 of 2013) when it was called upon for final hearing despite making statement before the Supreme Court that the Commission would appear in that matter was deprecated and the Civil Appeal was disposed off with a direction to the High Court to continue the hearing of the writ petitions viz the present batch of writ petitions. 10. In the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, in L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018, examined the correctness of the judgement dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17362 of 2018 and observed that in fact the learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded to hear one set of writ petitions challenging the result of the mains examination and leave aside the batch of writ petitions in which the result of the preliminary examination has been challenged. 11. Both the stages of examination, i.e., the preliminary and the mains, which have been challenged separately, were under the same recruitment process. 12. The judgement dated 05.03.2019, passed in L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018, clearly reflects that the Division Bench was satisfied that there was no material to point out any illegality or irregularity or lapses in the holding of the mains examination. It was also taken note of by the Division Bench, referred to above, that the learned Single Judge, in case of any doubt about the fairness of the preliminary examination, ought to have decided the present batch of writ petitions simultaneously with those petitions which challenged the result of the mains examination. 13. While coming to the conclusion that there was no unfairness in the mains examination, the Division Bench took note of the contents of the F.I.R.s which were lodged at the instance of the Commission and one of the Centre Superintendents with respect to the leakage of question papers and came to the conclusion that there was no unfairness in the conduct of the examination. With respect to other irregularities also, the Division Bench rejected the contention of the writ petitioners / appellants and gave a green signal for concluding / closing down the recruitment process and publishing of the result of the mains examination forthwith. 14. Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned advocate for the petitioners, taking clue from the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court was not prevented from hearing the writ petitions challenging the result of the preliminary examination, has now sought to question the fairness of the preliminary examination. 15. Without going into any factual issues raised by the petitioners with respect to the fairness of the examination, this Court finds itself at a loss to understand as to how the result of the preliminary examination can now be questioned when a Division Bench of this Court has conclusively held that there was no unfairness in the mains examination and directed for concluding / closing down the recruitment process with the publication of result. 16. This Court has been informed that the results have already been published and necessary orders of recruitment are being passed by the Police Department. 17. Had the petitioners in these batch of petitions were really serious in contending unfairness in the preliminary examination, they ought to have intervened in the L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2018 as any order passed in the aforesaid LPA would have, in one way or the other, affected the present set of petitioners. That not having been done, the issue cannot now be raked up for any purpose. The only remedy available to the petitioners now is to challenge the order passed by the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court, if so desired. 18. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the result of the preliminary examination when the result of the mains examination have already published and the curtain has been drawn on the recruitment process. 19. Thus, there being no merits in the writ petitions, they are dismissed. 20. There shall be no order as to costs.