Patna High CourtC. REV./292/2017dismissed

Jay Prakash Narayan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-31Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.292 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7257 of 2016 ====================================================== Jay Prakash Narayan, Son of Shree Hans Raj Gohiwar, Resident of Khutauna, P.O.+P.S.- Khutauna, District- Madhubani at present residing at Chaudhary Tola, Mahendru, Patna-6.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd. through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, Patna.

3. The General Manager, (Hr.), Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Deputy General Manager, (Hr.), Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. Rakesh Ranjan (Human Resource) Administration, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

6. Sri Anurag Kaushal Singh, Ex-O.S.D. (H.R./Administration), Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

7. Sri K.K. Jain, Ex-Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Daya Shanker Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 Heard Mr. Daya Shanker Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

This application has been filed for review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 4.5.2017 passed in CWJC No.7257 of 2016 whereby the writ petition was disposed of holding that there is no infirmity in the directions so contained in the letter dated 18.3.2016 permitting the writ petitioner to appear in the Lekha Pravin Pariksha Part-I. The issues raised by Mr. Daya Shankar Prasad, learned

Patna High Court C. REV. No.292 of 2017 (5) dt.31-01-2018 counsel appearing for the petitioner in this review application are the issues raised in the writ petition and which has already been discussed in the judgment and order under review and rejected. The grounds raised are a reiteration of issues raised in the writ petition and do not persuade this Court to a review. This civil review application is dismissed accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U