IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.464 of 2009 1. Pawan Kumar son of Sri Srinarayan Singh, Resident of village- Tilha Belhari Tola, Gaya P.S. Civil Line, Gaya, in the district of Gaya. 2. Gopal Sharma kson of Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Resident of village- Parampura, P.S. Khamaini, P.S. Arwal, District Jehanabad. 3. Anil Kumar Sinha son of Kamdeo Prasad Sinha, Resident of village- Ghughari Tar, P.S. Civil Line Gaya, District- Gaya. ….Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Director of Animal Husbandry, Magadh Range, Gaya. …Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, A.A.G.4 with Mr. Amarendra Kumar 4/ 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. On going through the order passed by the writ court dated 13.10.1998, it is found that the said order was passed on the basis of agreed stand of the parties that the matter be disposed of in terms of the judgment and order 9.9.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6904 of 1996 which gave certain advantage and weightage in future appointment to persons like the petitioners whose appointment had been cancelled. The L.P.A. against that order was withdrawn in the year 1999 and Civil Review No. 2 of 2000 was preferred before the learned single Judge and the same has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 26.2.2009 after noting tone and tenor of the order of the writ court dated 13.10.1998 which does not decide any issue. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in similar nature of controversy some cases have been referred to larger Bench to reconcile the difference of opinion between the two Benches. On the - 2 - other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in appropriate cases where issues decided lead to difference of opinion the matter may be referred to larger Bench but in the present case no issue was decided either by the writ court or even by the order under appeal dismissing the review petition. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Nityanand Datkullyar (1997 (1) PLJR 121) every order is not a judgment for the purpose of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and only such orders are appelable under Clause 10 which decides any right of the parties, may be even on interlocutory stage of the proceeding. The judgment dismissing the review application at least decides one issue whether the petitioner of the review petition was entitled to seek review or not and hence, it can not be accepted that the appeal is not maintainable. However, on facts, we find that there is no issue decided by the writ court which could be reviewed in this case and in absence of any issue it is not a fit case to be referred to a larger Bench. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. The connected files may now be dealt by the office separately. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.)