IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.53 of 2010 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2009 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11692 of 2002 =========================================================== 1. Nalanda Gramin Bank having its Head Office at Bihar Sharif (now Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank having its Head Office at Mina Plaza, south of Patna Museum, Patna) 2. The Chairman, Nalanda Gramin Bank, Bihar Sharif (now the Chairman Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Meena Plaza, south of Patna Museum, Patna) 3. Senior Manager, personnel, Nalanda Gramin Bank, Head Office, Bihar Sharif (Nalanda) (now Senior Manager, Personnel, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna) 4. The Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman, having its Head Office at Meena Plaza, South of Patna Museum, Budha Marg, Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Diwakar Prasad, son of Dwarika Prasad, resident of Suryodaya Dakhli Ghat Road, Mohalla Khandak Par, P.O. & P.S. Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda 2. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Chandradeo Singh, Resident of Deepa Bhawan, Near Budha Dental College, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna 3. Dinesh Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Ram Sharan Prasad Sinha, Resident of Tetariya, P.O. Barai, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda 4. Mahesh Prasad, son of Shri Bajo Prasad, Resident of Village Kakaila, P.O. Mirchaiganj, P.S. & District Nalanda 5. Subhash Chandra Sinha, Son of Late Bhojal Prasad, resident of Kamrudinganj, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda 6. Suresh Prasad, Son of Shri Narayan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Manpur Sarahi Tola, P.O. Buniyadganj, P.S. Gaya Mufassil, District Gaya 7. Rajendra Singh, Son of Late Sheo Govind Singh, Resident of Village Chhapra, P.O. Akorhi, P.S. Akorhi Gola, District Rohtas 8. Bishnu Prasad Sah, son of Shri Maheshwar Prasad Sah, C/o C.M. Singh, Udantpuri Mohalla Garh Per, P.O. & P.S. Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda .... .... Respondents Patna High Court C. REV. No.53 of 2010 dt.14-07-2011 2 =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORDER Date : 14 July 2011. (Per : HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) This Civil Review has been filed by the Respondents of L.P.A. No.570 of 2009 decided on 16.9.2009. On behalf of the petitioners, an attempt has been made to assail the merits of the L.P.A. which can not be permitted since this Court is conscious that it is not sitting in appeal over the original judgment and the scope of review is limited under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. Also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given limited liberty to the petitioners only to the extent of bringing to this Court’s notice that the minutes of 20th April, 2000 had never been acted upon and by a subsequent Resolution dated 24.6.2002 it had been resolved that the upgraded post would be filled as per the new rules vide order passed in S.L.A. (Civil) C.C. No.691 of 2010 dated 25.9.2010. Under the circumstances, this Court limits the petitioners to address this Court only on the said point. Heard the parties at length who stick to their original and divergent stands. It is note worthy that the L.P.A. was disposed off at the stage of hearing. The order sheet reveals that two full hearings had been afforded to the parties and the matter was decided on the extensive arguments advanced on their behalf. It is also relevant to mention herein that the concerned Resolution dated 20.4.2000 was brought on record by the present petitioners vide Annexure A in the Patna High Court C. REV. No.53 of 2010 dt.14-07-2011 3 L.P.A. through a Counter Affidavit. On perusal of the Affidavit it appears that presumably it was brought on record when the issue was raised in course of arguments. Even today the Counsel for the petitioners concedes that the Resolution dated 20.4.2000 was binding on the parties. In the present review petition, no doubt at paragraph 36 the petitioners have averred that the said Resolution was not acted upon and it got substituted/superseded by the consequent resolution dated 24.6.2002, but there is no averment that the said resolution was overtly reversed or set aside. This assumes importance since in the original L.P.A. at paragraph 16 while discussing this Resolution it was argued : “That what is more surprising is that the aforesaid resolution dated 20.4.2000 was taken by the Board of Directors making a complete turn around of the earlier resolution dated 10.12.99 of the Board of Directors without reversing the earlier resolution which decided to fill up vacancies in the higher scale as per existing rules i.e. the New Rules being operative w.e.f. 29.7.98.” Evidently the Resolution dated 20.4.2000 was assailed since it did not reverse the earlier Resolution. There is no reason pointed out as to why the same yardstick would not apply to the Resolution dated 24.6.2002 which went back on Resolution dated 20.4.2000 and once again provided for vacancy to be filled up by the New Rules without reversing the same. Further more, it appears that this Court on page 8 had noted that one Dinesh Sharma had been given benefit of promotion adopting the Old Rules. Patna High Court C. REV. No.53 of 2010 dt.14-07-2011 4 In the result, this Review Application is dismissed. ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) I agree R.M. Doshit, CJ ( R. M. Doshit, CJ ) Patna High Court. The 14 July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra