The State Of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.161 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19487 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur. 3.

Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Jamui. 4.

Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Kali Singh, Resident of Village and P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya.

2.

Vijay Yadav, son of Late Budhan Yadav, resident of Village - Madabigha, P.S. - Fatehpur, District - Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rewti Kant Raman For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 18-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners. Scope of review petition is limited to the extent of what is error apparent on the face of record. The Learned counsel for review petitioners could not apprise as to what is the error apparent on the face of the record. He has submitted that no junior to the respondents' service regularized and further in terms of Annexure - A, B and C order dated 25.11.2021 is required to be reviewed. Today Apex Court examined scope of review petition in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 Live Law SC (685) CA 5503-5505 of

Patna High Court C. REV. No.161 of 2022(2) dt.18-08-2022 2/2 2022, dated 18.08.2022, it is held that review power can be invoked only for errors apparent on record, not for errors which are to be detected by process of reasoning.

It is to be noted that while deciding C.W.J.C. No. 19487 of 2019, this Court has noticed that as long as order of regularization dated 13.04.2015 is not modified or cancelled, the petitioners are not entitled to substantiate the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 read with 26.09.2018. That apart the review petitioners have not questioned the validity of order dated 20.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 228 of 2017 in preferring L.P.A.

Accordingly, review petitioners have not made out a case so as to recall the order dated 25.11.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19487 of 2019. Review petition stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./- U