Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) THESE batch of writ petitions were preferred by the petitioners, who were unsuccessful in the recruitment exercise conducted under the advertisement no. 1/08 for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector, Company Commander and Seargent. The State -respondent had published the merit list pursuant to the selection exercise in respect of which it was alleged by the petitioners that the merit list has not been prepared in a proper manner and also suffers from lack of fairness, transparency and credibility. Petitioners had sought quashing of the two merit list prepared pursuant thereto in individual writ petitions and also sought casting of fresh merit list in accordance with law. Other consequential prayers were also made by individual petitioners asking for a stay of operation of the said merit list.
(2.) IT is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were interim orders in one or the other cases that any appointment made there under would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. Petitioners in individual writ petitions had also impleaded certain private respondents. What transpired during the pendency of the writ petitions is that the State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Director General of Police to go into the entire aspect of the matter and come to the finding of any illegality and irregularity committed in the preparation of merit list and also come out with a revised merit list. The Committee found certain lacuna in the preparation of the previous merit list impugned in these writ petitions and came out with the revised merit list in which 42 candidates who were appointed under the earlier merit list, were recommended to be removed from service and in their place, 43 persons were recommended to be appointed. The said recommendation was carried out and services of 42 such appointees were terminated and consequentially 43 persons were appointed as per the revised merit list. Many of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have also got appointment, as have been pointed through various interlocutory applications as well as affidavits filed on their behalf in respective writ petitions. In view of the developments that took place because of the revision in the merit list, petitioners preferred interlocutory applications seeking amendments in the main writ application mainly to challenge the revised merit list. Other amendments were also proposed in individual interlocutory applications on which the State -Respondents were asked to respond vide order dated 14.8.2014.
(3.) THE State -respondents have replied to a number of interlocutory applications as filed in individual writ petitions. Learned Government Advocate Mr. Rajesh Shankar has submitted that because of subsequent development and issuance of revised merit list where under several appointments were also made including many of these petitioners, a peculiar situation has arisen where some of the original petitioners who have been appointed, will have to be impleaded as private respondents in individual writ petitions as they are the beneficiaries of the revised merit list which is proposed to be challenged. It is submitted on their part that the original cause of action was directed against the merit list prepared earlier, whereafter the State itself has carried out an exercise and prepared a revised merit list, as aforesaid. It is also submitted that the original cause of action does not remain. Petitioners who claim a surviving cause of action in these batch of writ petitions and have not been appointed and are not in the revised merit list, they may have the liberty to assail the revised merit list, if they are still aggrieved by it in a fresh writ petition.;