Patna High CourtC. REV./204/2016disposed

Dr. Ajit Kumar Hansda v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-06-28Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.204 of 2016 ====================================================== DR. AJIT KUMAR HANSDA SON OF LATE SRI SUBODHAN HANSDA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KORAPARA (MIHIJIM) POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION MIHIJAM, DISTRICT DUMKA .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HRD, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

3. THE DIRECTOR, ANUGRAH NARAYAN SINHA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES, PATNA

4. THE REGISTRAR, ANUGRAH NARAYAN SINHA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES, PATNA

5. DR MINAKETAN BEHERA, SON OF PRAFULLA CHANDRA BEHERA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAITUNDI, POST OFFICE KENDRAPARA, POLICE STATION KENDRAPARA, ORISSA Opposite parties/respondents

6. MUKESH KUMAR RAI, SON OF LATE RAMAWTAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANUGARI, POST OFFICE ANUGARI, POLICE STATION AUNGARI, DISTRICT NALANDA

7. ANUJA DAUGHATER OF PUNYANAND BHAGATR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KRISHNAGHAT PATNA

7. AWADHESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE SAKALDEED PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POST OFFICE DOMA POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the I.A.No.3450 of 2016, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

Respondent no.5 of C.W.J.C.No. 9353 of 2011 has filed instant review application seeking review of order dated 4.9.2015, passed in the writ petition.

It is submitted that the review petitioner has not filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and as such some relevant

Patna High Court C. REV. No.204 of 2016 (5) dt.28-06-2017 2/3 facts necessary for determination of the issue is not on record. By way of illustration, learned counsel refers to paragraph 10 of the order, dated 4.9.2015, which reads as follows:- "The case of the petitioner is that the roaster point is not followed either post wise or subject wise. The petitioner's case is that respondent No.5 has wrongly been given the benefit of reservation as a ST category while selecting him for the post of Lecturer of Political Science in preference to his candidature. He submits that respondent no.5 belonged to the State of Jharkhand and as such would not be entitled to benefit of reservation in view of policy of the government contained in letter dated 11.6.1996 and 18.4.2000, contained in Annexures-11 and 12 respectively. The A.N.

Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act, 1964 and clause 16 of the Regulation, 1956 specify that in matters relating to conditions of service, the rules framed by the State Government would alone regulate the service conditions of the Staff of the Institute. The department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, vide its letter dated 11.6.1995 (Annexure-10) took a policy decision that candidates belonging to reserved category of other State would not be considered against the reserved seat and the same would be confined to candidates belonging to reserved category of State of Bihar only. The aforesaid policy decision was again reiterated by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar vide its letter dated 18.4.2000 (Annexure-12).

The advertisement also stipulated that roaster rules of Government of Bihar would be applicable."

Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel contended that the rule governing the service condition of the employees and the attached staff of A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna is different from those of the Government.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.204 of 2016 (5) dt.28-06-2017 3/3 He fairly submits that though notice was issued and served, the review petitioner did not file counter affidavit as the Institute had already appeared and filed counter affidavit defending its order and his interest.

In my view, the said ground cannot be a basis for reviewing an order unless the statutes provides for the same. It goes without saying that the review petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.