Patna High CourtC. REV./88/2017disposed

Irfana Begum v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-08Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.88 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7298 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Irfana Begum W/o Shams Nezami r/o Village-Khairwa, P.s. Chhauradono Disttrict East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar thorugh Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education, Officer East Champaran.

4. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran, Motihari.

5. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Khairwa at Khairwa, P.O.-Halsa, P.S.-Chhauradano. District East Champaran.

6. Panchyat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Khairwa, at Khairwa, P.O.- Bella, P.S.-Chhauradano, District-East Champaran.

7. Shabnam Ara, Wife of Shahid Kamal, Resident of Village-Khairwa, P.S.Chhauradano, District-East Champaran.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh Mr. Rajeev Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 08-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 02.07.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7298 of 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of the LPA No.32 of 2014 dated 10.01.2015 filed the present review application for review of the order dated 02.07.2013.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.88 of 2017 (4) dt.08-08-2018 2/2 The scope of the review is very limited. It is only admissible within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1. The Court does not find any error in the impugned order apparent on the face of the record for review of the order dated 2.7.2013. The subsequent judgment 10.01.2015 is no ground for review the order dated 02.07.2013.

The remedy may be available in the nature of filing appeal referring to the subsequent order passed by the LPA Court. The Court does not find any merit in the review application. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sanjeev/- U