Patna High CourtC. REV./33/2016dismissed

Sudhansu Moses v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-01Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh,Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.33 of 2016 IN LPA 1216 of 2013 =========================================================== Sudhansu Moses Son of Shri Henry Moses, resident of Mohalla- Sahebganj, P.S.- University, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, through its Secretary, Patna

3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna

4. Umesh Kumar Bharti, through the Secretary, B.P.S.C., Patna

5. Sunita Kumari, through the Secretary, B.P.S.C., Patna

6. Raghvendra Pratap Singh S/O Nand Kishore Singh, resident Of VillageKulhadiya, P.O.- Karmnasha, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Bihar)

7. Punam Kumari W/O Raj Kumar Thakur Resident Of Bache Bigha, P.O.- Tarwa, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishor Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate For the respondent nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) Date: 01-11-2017 Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishor Prasad, learned Senior Advocate for the BPSC and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 6

Patna High Court C. REV. No.33 of 2016 dt.01-11-2017 2/2 and 7.

The present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed in LPA No. 1216 of 2013 of this Court.

We are of the opinion that a party is not entitled to seek review of the order merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. It has to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC as review proceedings are by no way an appeal. No error, apparent on the face of the record, could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.

In that view of the matter, the review application is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Kanchan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.11.2017 Transmission Date NA