IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.24 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7081/2010) Vijay Kumar Verma Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 3 12/10/2011 Having heard learned counsel for review petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I am satisfied that this review application is misconceived. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he was a necessary party to the writ petition and upon not having been made a party and not having been heard, the order passed by this Court in the writ proceeding should be reviewed. In my view, the plea even though technical cannot be accepted. In my view, the review petitioner is not affected by the order passed in the writ petition in any manner. As noted above in the order passed in the writ petition itself, the review petitioner had sought to challenge the appointment and the writ petitioner, who was made in the year 2005 as Shiksha Mitra, in the year 2009 before the appellate tribunal such an application could not have been entertained by the tribunal because in 2006 the post of Shiksha Mitra was abolished and the Shiksha Mitras working on that date were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers. The tribunal did not grant any relief to the review petitioner. Effectively the relief as sought by the review petitioner and in his place the selection of the review 2 petitioner was not acceded to. The reason was simple. The review petitioner was found to be ineligible for consideration for appointment having marks less than minimum eligibility. While denial any relief to the review petitioner, the tribunal upon itself embarked upon an enquiry and then ordered dismissal of the writ petitioner. Thus, any order passed in the writ petition would in no manner affect much less adversely to the review petitioner. Why the Court have insisted on party being heard is that no adverse order could be passed in absence of party. Here whatever order is passed in the writ petition does not adversely affect much less in any manner to the review petitioner. That being so, absence of the review petitioner to the writ petition does not make the writ petition not maintainable. This review application merits no consideration and it is accordingly dismissed. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)