Patna High CourtC. REV./502/2017dismissed

Shyam Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-27Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.502 of 2017 In Letters Patent Appeal No.579 of 2014 ====================================================== Shyam Kishore Singh son of Sri Ram Pratap Singh resident of village Chandauli, P.S. Vaini, District Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bhojpur.

3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhojpur.

4. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur at Ara.

5. The Mukhia, Bichla Jangal Mahal Gram Panchayat Block Jagdishpur, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.

6. The Panchayat Secretary, Bichla Jangal Mahal Gram Panchayat, Block Jagdishpur, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.

7. Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey son of Sri Kameshwar Pandey Resident of Village Bharasora, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.

8. Sri Anjani Kumar son of Sri Shyam Narayan Singh resident of village Tenduri, P.S. Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to AAG 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date : 27-04-2018 Even though we are not satisfied with the reasons provided in the condonation application, which is I.A. No. 2253 of 2018, however, in the interest of justice, delay of 229 days is condoned. The matter is thereafter taken up on the merits.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.502 of 2017 dt.27-04-2018 2/2 Review application lacks merit for two reasons. One, that there is no error apparent on the face of record, which requires rectification and two, that the submission of the counsel that the petitioner should be permitted to continue on the post till new appointments are made is a misplaced submission and expectation to have since the appointment has been held to be bad and the direction was given for taking fresh steps for filling up the post with liberty to the petitioner to participate, if he is otherwise eligible. Review application has no merit. It is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) ragini/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.04.2018 Transmission Date NA