IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.266 of 1998 SANTAN KUMAR SON OF RAVINDRA SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELAUNA, P.S. BHAGWANGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. …………………………………….PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA…………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioner :-Mr. Banwari Sharma Mr. Shiv Kumar For the Respondents :-Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, Sr.Advocate(AAG IV) Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Addvocate (J.C.toAAG IV) ----------- 10. 16. 01. 09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Opposite Parties. This application is for review of the order dated 10. 8. 1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 663/97, whereby the writ application was disposed of. In the writ application, petitioner challenges the order of his termination from the post of Milk Recorder (Milk Writer) vide letter No. 988, dated 6. 11. 1996, as contained in Annexure- 1 to the writ application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner made on 9. 4. 1991 (Annexure-2) was cancelled by order dated 6. 11. 96, (Annexure-1) on the ground that appointment of the petitioner was made by the Regional Deputy Director, who was not competent authority. It is further submitted that during the hearing of the matter the circular dated 28.10. 1991, was taken into consideration as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed - 2 - in the writ application. Learned counsel submits that in course of hearing, the important documents could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, vide Memo No. 262, dated 27. 2. 92, as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit. In this Review Application, it is specifically stated that with effect from the date of aforesaid letter, the Regional Officers (Regional Director) were not competent to make any appointments on the post of Class III and Class IV. However, the petitioner’s appointment was prior to the issue of the said letter dated 27. 2. 1992, vide Annexure-B and as such his appointment having made 9. 4. 1991 and confirmed on 9. 1. 1992 by the Regional Officers (Regional Director) before issue of the letter dated 21. 2. 1992 was valid in law. While hearing the writ application, the Circular dated 28. 10.91, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, filed in the writ application was taken into consideration which was exclusively meant for Class IV post and as such taken into considering the aforesaid circular and judgment dated 21.10.97, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11264/1996, this Court held to the effect that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ application against the order of his termination. Learned counsel submits that the appointment of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 11264/1996, which was disposed on 21. 10. 97, was made after power to make appointment with Regional Director was withdrawn with effect from 27. 2. 1992, with respect to - 3 - Class III post, whereas the petitioner of this case was appointed prior to the 27. 2. 1992. In the above circumstances, learned counsel submits that order passed in C.W.J.C. 663/97, dated 10.8.98, should be reviewed and writ application be heard. Learned Addl. Advocate General No. IV, appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer and submitted that appointment of the petitioner was made by incompetent authority and that too without following due laid down procedure However, on going through the order of termination as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, he is not in a position to point out that order of termination was also passed on account of failure to observe laid down procedure for such appointment. Save and except, that the order of termination of the petitioner was on the ground that he was not appointed by the competent authority and as such he can not claim any vested right in his favour on account of such appointment. It is further submitted that admittedly, since by letter dated 28. 10. 1991, (Annexure-A) power to make appointment on Class IV post was withdrawn. There could be no justification to continue the power to make appointment on Class III post but not disputed that the petitioner was appointed prior to expressed decision taken to withdraw the power to make appointment on Class III post by the Regional Director, as per letter dated 27. 2. 1992 (Annexure-B). Upon, hearing the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it appears that writ application - 4 - was disposed by order under review taking into consideration the judgment dated 21. 10. 97 (inadvertence typed as 21. 10. 96) passed C.W.J.C.663 of 1997, wherein this Court observed as follows ; “ ……..This Court also held that by the judgment dated 21.10.1996 almost on identical facts that such appointments cannot be held valid. Therefore, on the ratio of the said judgment Dated 21.10.1996 This Court holds that no relief can be granted in this case” There is no dispute betweens the parties that appointment of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 663 of 1997 was made prior to power of appointment by the Regional Director was withdrawn on 27.2. 1992.(Annexure-B) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the order dated 10.8.98, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 663 of 1997, deserves to be reviewed. The writ application be heard afresh. Accordingly, this review application is allowed. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)