Om Prakash Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.207 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1668 of 2017 ====================================================== Om Prakash Manjhi, son of Late Lakshmi Manjhi, Resident of M.I.G. - 208, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District - Patna, presently posted as Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Siwan under suspension.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, A.C. to AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 19-06-2019 Heard Shri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the applicant.

Shri Giri submits that the order of the Division Bench suffers from error apparent on the face of record on account of non-consideration of the relevant issues of law and fact and, therefore, the impugned judgment be reviewed. It is urged that the issues had been framed by the Court itself, yet it did not enter into the same. Shri Giri has also invited the attention of the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.207 of 2018(3) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 Court that the applicant had approached the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16255 of 2018 and the order has been placed as Annexure-3 to this application which reads that the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The order is dated 5th July, 2018. He, however, submits that dismissal of S.L.P. does not amount to merger and, therefore, it is still open for the applicant to press for review on the basis of the errors which have been pointed out in the Review Application. We have considered the same and we do not find that any of the questions raised fall within the definition of error apparent on the face of record. The application is misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Nilu Agrawal, J) P.K.P./- U