IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14424 of 2009 1. UPENDRA PRASAD ROY S/O RAM CHANDRA ROY VILL.- PANCHPATIA, P.S.- AWTARNAGAR, DISTT.- SARAN 2. KRISHNA KUMAR ROY S/O VIRENDRA PRASAD ROY VILL.- BARAGOPAL, P.S.- AWTARNAGAR, DISTT.- SARAN 3. KUMAR GAURAV SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE BRAJ KISHORE LAL SRIVASTAVA MOH.- EAST MOHAN NAGAR, P.S.- CHHAPRA TOWN, DISTT.- SARAN 4. BINA KUMARI D/O SHEONATH PRASAD KUSHWAHA VILL.- RASULPUR, P.S.- RASULPUR, DISTT.- SARAN 5. DHIRAJ KUMAR S/O TRILOKINATH SINGH VILL.- BODHA CHHAPRA, P.S.- AWTARNAGAR, DISTT.- SARAN 6. SAKET RAJ S/O VINOD KUMAR SINHA R/O QUARTER NO. 3/B, GOVT. COLONEY, DAMUCHAK, P.S.- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 4. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA ----------- 3. 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. An Advertisement No. 704/2004 was published inviting application for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector in the Bihar Police. There were allegations of irregularities in the question papers and analysis of the answer papers. The results were published on 30.5.2008. This was questioned in C.W.J.C. No. 9155 of 2008 and analogous cases disposed on 23.9.2008. The Commission took necessary steps to delete the questions with wrong answer and re-evaluate the answer sheet leading to a fresh select list. Appointments were then 2 made beyond the posts advertised also which was questioned unsuccessfully in another writ application affirmed in L.P.A. These facts are not in dispute at all between the counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Commission. This writ application seeks to raise issues already considered, discussed and decided in C.W.J.C. No. 9155 of 2008 and analogous cases disposed on 23.9.2008 by a fresh allegation instituted much belatedly on 30.10.2009. There is no explanation why the petitioners were not vigilant about their right and did not approach this Court immediately after publication of the results on 30.5.2008. Appointments are stated now to have been made and the selected persons have joined also. The matter has to be given a quietus. The petitioners are alone to be blamed for not being to vigilant for the protection of their rights. This Court is not persuaded that this is a fit case to reopen the entire selection matter again on issues already decided. The application stands dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)