Yoge v. The State of Bihar & Ors

Madan Prasad, son of Shri Narsingh Ram, resident of village Dayalchak, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District Patna.

Deo Nandan Rai, son of late Chandrika Rai, resident of village Kharath, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna.

Bhushan Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Saudagar Singh, resident of village Bindauli, P.S. Fatuha, District Patna.

Yogendra Mahto, son of Shri Bhola Mahto, resident of village Saridachak, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna.

Lal Bahadur, son of late Ram Bahadur, resident of Muhalla Dujarachak, P.S. Dujara, Town and District Patna.

Ram Bali Jha, son of Shri Kalikant Jha, resident of village Antaura, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga.

Dewata Prasad, son of Shri Kapildeo Rai, resident of Anishabad, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna.

Surendra Kumar Jha, son of late Jaynandan Jha, resident of village Kumhara Bishunpur, District Sitamarhi.

Raju Prasad, son of Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of Purbi Gardener Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.

Tarkeshwar Dubey, son of late Gupteshwar Dubey, resident of village Baghaur, Narayanpur, P.S. Agiaaw Bazar, District Bhojpur.

Damodar Prasad, son of Shri Madhusudan Prasad, resident of village Somara Jamshed, P.S. Rafiganj, District Aurangabad 13. Shivdani Prasad, son of Shri Ramjee Mahto, resident of village Nadpurn, Dih, P.S. Akbarpur, District Nawadah.

Ganga Singh, son of late Tulasi Singh, residkent of village Kathu, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.

Supan Prasad Yadav, son of late Asharfi Yadav, resident of Pahleja, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran.

Parmeshwar Pandit, son of Shri Munshi Pandit, resident of Khajpura, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.

Saheban Ram, son of Shri Bhonu Ram, resident of village Datmai, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna.

Raj Kumar Paswan, son of late Sahdeo Paswan, resident of village Kaila, P.S. Nagarnausa, District Nalanda.

Kirani Sah, son of Shri Lal Babu Sah, resident of village Purani Dih, P.S. Kesariya, Districkt East Champaran (Motihari ) 2

Satyanand Singh, son of Shri Jagdish Singh, resident of Kurkuri, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 20(a). Nagendra Dubey, son of Shri Ramakant Dubey, resident of Purani Panapur, P.S. Danapur, District Patna.

Sattan Sah, son of late Paltan Sahu, resident of village Guriya, P.S. Senhaul, District Bhagalpur.

Radheyshayan Thakur, son of Shri Tej Narain Thakur, resident of village Yajiuar P.S. Yajiyar, District Muzaffarpur.

Ram Bihari, son of Shri Jagdeo Singh, resident of village Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District Patna.

Shayam Bihari, son of Shri Jagdeo Singh, resident of village Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District Patna.

Ram Kumar Jha, son of Shri Balkrishna Jha, resident of village Habiar, P.S. Sahera, District Darbhanga.

Shanker Singh, son of Shri Ramanand Singh, resident of village Nansagar, P.S. Sandesh, District Bhojpur.

Raj Mangal Rao, son of Sri Durga Prasad, resident of Mohalla Rampur, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya.

Madhu Singh, son of Shri Shiv Narain Singh, resident of village Sonawa, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna.

Bihari Singh, son of Shri Shiv Narain Singh, resident of village Sonawa, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna.

Nem Narain Arya, son of late Jamuna, resident of village Sampatchak, P.S. Gaurichak, District Patna.

Akhilesh Kumar Malakar, son of Shri Badri Bhagat, resident of village Fatehpur, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna.

Ram Prasad Singh, son of Shri Hiraman Singh, resident of village Sonawa, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna.

Jamun Singh, son of Shri Joga Singh, resident of village Mahuli, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna.

Hardayal Singh, son of Shri Aanand Singh, resident of village Deuar, P.S. Sandesh, District Patna.

Ram Ashish Pandit, son of Shri Prasadi Pandit, resident of Bhikhacha, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.

Gopal Rai, son of Shri Mangal Rai, resident of Saristabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.

Sushila Devi, wife of late Awadh Prasad, resident of village Shivrampur, P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya. ..Writ Petitioners-Opposite Parties. ---- For the Petitioners : M/s Lalit Kishore, A.A.G. III and Anshuman Singh, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : M/s R. N. Mukhopadhaya and Alok , Advocates. -------

20.07.2009 12/ Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties ( petitioners in the writ case ).

2. This petition has been filed for review of order 3 dated 15.01.1997, by which a Bench of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 8510 of 1995 as the writ petitioners (opposite parties of this review petition ) did not wish to press the writ petition at that stage because their cases were going to be considered by the Government and hence the respondents of the writ petition, namely, petitioners of this review petition, were directed to act in accordance with Annexures 15 and 24 and if the writ petitioners were aggrieved at any subsequent stage it would be open to them to move this Court again and the respondents-authorities were directed to complete the process of selection within six months.

3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties at length, it transpires that in the said writ petition at the time of its disposal, the writ petitioners relied on Annexure 15, which showed that the Government was going to fill up vacancies in regular manner and it had decided to consider the cases of such casual employees as were mentioned in Annexure 24. To this submission and annexures of the writ petition the authorities did not raise any objection and, accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the writ court.

4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no error in the impugned order apparent on the face of the record nor any material has been produced which was not available at the time of passing of the said order nor this Court finds any other ground to interfere with the impugned 4 order sought to be reviewed.

5. Furthermore the points raised by the petitioners can only be raised in an appeal against the impugned order and not in a review case. Accordingly, this civil review petition is hereby dismissed. However, this order will not prejudice the case of the review petitioners if they prefer to challenge the said order in appeal, which has to be decided on its own merits subject to specific provision of law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )