Md. Shoyeb Alam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.221 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1583 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Shoyeb Alam, son of Md. Zakatullah, resident of village Maida, P.O Singhia Hat, P.S. + district Kishanganj ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources and Development Department (now Education Department), Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director (Primary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Education Officer, district Kishanganj
5. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj 6.The Mukhiya, Motihara Taluka Panchayat, Kishanganj, district Kishanganj
7. The Panchayat Secretary Motihara Taluka Panchayat, Kishanganj, district Kishanganj ... Opposite Party 1st Set
8. Shyamal Kumar Singh, son of Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Kolha Banwari, P.S. + district Kishanganj ... Opposite Party 2nd Set ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties :
Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG XV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 15-05-2019 An adjournment is being sought by Shri Narendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not inclined to adjourn, as we find that after the judgment of the Division Bench on 2nd March, 2017, the applicant approached the Apex Court and on 15th of September, 2017, the Apex Court passed the following order : "Heard.
Delay condoned.
We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.221 of 2018(2) dt.15-05-2019 2/2 accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of."
In view of the special leave petition having been dismissed this review application is nothing short of a rehearing of the entire matter and is not based on any principle of error apparent on the fact of record.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the review application.
It is, accordingly, rejected not only for the above reason, but, also for the reason that the review application has been filed after one year 1 year, 3 months and 17 days. The limitation petition is also rejected.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) Shamshad/- U