B.P. SINGH & I.P. SINGH, JJ. :- In this batch of writ petitions which are directed against the common judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 29th day of January, 1988 in O.A. Nos. 326 and 331 of 1997 the sole question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Committee constituted under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. 1955 ought to have prepared year-wise select list of candidates for appointment by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service rather than a consolidated select list in respect of vacancies which occurred during the period of three years since the Committee could not meet during this period for reasons beyond its control. The Tribunal has held, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Vipinchandran Hiralal Shah [(1996) VI Supreme Court Cases 721] that the Committee should have prepared a separate list for each year, keeping in view the number of vacancies in that year, after considering the State Civil Service Officers who were eligible, and fell within the zone of consideration, for selection in that year. While counsel for the petitioners before this Court contend that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah's case, does not apply to the facts of these cases, counsel for the private respondents contend that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment squarely cover these cases, and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the petitions before it following the aforesaid binding precedent of the Supreme Court.

2. Of the six writ petitions before this Court, four have been preferred by the petitioners whose names were included in the consolidated select list prepared by the Committee. The petitioner in CWJC No. 3293 of 1988 is the Union Public Service Commission. The petitioner in CWJC No. 2567 of 1988 however, is an officer of the State Administrative Service whose name was not included in the select list, and who was also a petitioner' before the Tribunal, yet he has preferred this writ petition urging some of the questions urged before the Tribunal, on which the Tribunal has expressed no opinion, since the list prepared by the Committee has been quashed on the ground that it was not prepared in accordance with the Regulations.

3. A few facts, not in dispute, may be stated. The Committee under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) met on 31st March, 1994 and prepared a list of 51 candidates. Thereafter the Committee did not meet in the following years and it met next on the 26th, 27th and 28th of March, 1997 to prepare the list of selected officers, to be considered for appointment against the vacancies which occurred in the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. The committee prepared a list of 60 officers to fill up the 50 vacancies which occurred or were anticipated, in the three years in question. The Committee did not prepare separate lists of selected officers in respect of each year, but clubbing together all the vacancies which occurred in the three years in question, and the anticipated vacancies, a common select list of 60 officers was prepared. This list was considered by the State of Bihar, the Govt. of India and ultimately after approval of the Union Public Service Commission, the list was notified in the Gazette on 27.11.1997.

4. The private respondents in four of the writ petitions and the petitioner in CWJC No.2567 of 1998 filed two applications before the Tribunal challenging the preparation of the select list. It may be noticed that when the two applications were filed before the Tribunal, the select list had not been finally published, but after its publication, the petitioners before the Tribunal prayed for amendment of the petitions and challenged the said published select list.

5. The