IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.115 of 2004 1. Suman Kumar Sharma son of Late Sahdeo Sharma, At present posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Pranpur, Police-Station- Pranpur, District-Katihar and permanent resident of village-Kamalpur, (New Toli), Post Office-Pachira, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Araria. 2. Jawahar Lal Chauhan, son of Yamuna Chauhan, at present posted as Assistant Teacher, Prathmic Vidyalaya (Manikpur), Narpatganj, District-Araria, and permanent resident of village- Kajra Tola, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Araria. …. Petitioners-Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The Controller of Examination, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 5. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Education Officer, Katihar. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 8. The Principal, Primary Teacher Training College, Tikapatti, Katihar. …. Respondents-opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s M.S.Hoda & Surya Narain Yadav, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, A.C. to G.P.2. ------ 03/ 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 12.07.2004 by which a bench of this court dismissed CWJC No.12921 of 2001 finding it from the record that practical examination conducted in the year 1994 was cancelled and the said examination was again conducted on 15.02.1995 and 16.02.1995, whereafter the results have already been declared and the petitioners and such other students who did not appear in the practical 2 examination were declared failed and hence no direction can be given to re-issue the results. So far the question of supply of information to the petitioners is concerned, the court found that if 200 persons can appear in the subsequent practical examinations, then there was no question why the petitioners could not appear. It was further found that after declaration of the result in the year 1995, the petitioners did not come out of their slumber and filed their writ petition in the year 2001, i.e. after more six years which stood unexplained and the clock cannot be reversed. 3. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that there is no error apparent on the face of record, nor there is any material to take a different view. On the other hand, the petitioners have clearly misused the process of law and have unnecessarily wasted the time of the court by filing such frivolous petition. 4. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)