A judgment is binding only on the parties to the case and their privies.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner initially prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned recommendation dated the 28th February, 1987, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition and further for a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the posts which they held till they attained the age of superannuation without giving effect to the impugned recommendation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition, inter alia, praying therein that an appropriate writ be issued by this Court quashing the order dated the 18th April, 1987, as contained in Annexure-6 to the said application framed in the writ petition as also the order dated the 18th April, 1987, as contained in Annexure-7 thereto.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The Bihar Rajya Awar Seva Chayan Parishad. The Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Steno, Sub-Inspector in the office of the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. The requisite qualification for such posts was that the candidate should be graduate from a recognised University. The aforementioned Board also invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector in the said office and in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, So far as the posts of Steno Sub-Inspector are concerned, the same were in the scale of Rs. 730-1080 whereas the posts of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector were in the scale of Rs. 680-965. Admittedly, the petitioners applied for the posts of Steno Sub-Inspector whereas the respondent Nos. 4 to 16 being eligible for appointment to the said posts applied for both the posts of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector and Steno Sub-Inspector. It is also admitted that the respondents 4 to 16 filed two different applications for two different posts. The petitioners appeared in one examination, whereas the respondents 4 to 16 appeared in two examinations, allegedly for appointment in two different posts.

4. The petitioners were selected and by a letter bearing No. 4235 dated the 30th June, 1986, they were informed that they had been appointed to the aforementioned posts. So far as the respondents 4 to 16 are concerned, admittedly, although their position was higher than that of the petitioners, they were not offered any appointment on the allegation that they had committed fraud in filing two applications and managed to appear in two different tests.

5. One Shri Rajendra Singh purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforementioned order of the State of Bihar whereby and whereunder he was not considered for appointment in the aforementioned post filed a writ petition in this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1713 of 1986. It is admitted that at the time of the admission of the said application, tins Court directed that one post should be kept vacant for him.

6. Thereafter, by a judgment dated the 7th August, 1986, a Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties to the said writ petition held that the posts of Steno Sub-Inspector and the posts of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector were two different posts and, as such, allowed the said writ petition and quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to consider him for appointment to the post of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector either in Ka or Gha category. The said judgment is contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. It is admitted that in the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioners were not impleaded as parties. Thereafter, several other persons being Amar Kumar Singh and others filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 3778 of