IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.44 of 2008 Sanjeev Kumar son of late Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Moh. Ram Krishna Nagar, New By Pass Road, „Prakash Sadan‟ Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna, at present Reporter, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna (Respondent no.7 in L.P.A. No.1170/05 and C.W.J.C. No.13948/02) --------- Respondent/ Petitioner. Versus 1. Virendra Kumar S/O Shri Shiv Narain Prasad, Resident of 4-M/150 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna at present residing in the house of Shri Binod Kumar Gupta, “Radha Bhawan”, Saket Nagar, Hinoo, Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13948/02 and Appellant in L.P.A. No.1170/05). 2. Bablu Kumar S/O Amrendra Narain, Resident of Ram Krishna Nagar, „Prakash Sadan‟ New By Pass Road, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt. Patna (Respondent no.6 in L.P.A. No.1170/05). 3. Shambhu Kumar S/o Shri Sadan Pd. Singh, Resident of Moh. Officer‟s Flat No. 215, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna, at present Reporter in Bihar Vidhan Sabha (Respondent no.8 in L.P.A. No.1170/05). 4. Bihar Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary. 5. The Speaker, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna. 6. Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna. 7. Deputy Secretary (Establishment) Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna. 8. The State of Bihar through Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, all Respondent nos. 1 to 5 in L.P.A. No.1170/05 & C.W.J.C. No.13948/02). 9. Cabinet Vigilance Department Govt. of Bihar through the Additional Director of Police (Vigilance), 6 Circular Road, Patna (Respt. No.9 in L.P.A. No. 1170/05) ---- Opp. Parties. ---------- 4. 10.4.2009 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta for respondent nos. 4 to 7, and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.5 for respondent nos. 8 and 9. This application has been filed by respondent no.7 of L.P.A. No. 1170 of 2005 (Virendra Kumar Vrs. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna and others), for review of the order dated 11.1.2008, whereby the appeal was disposed of. The case of the present petitioner was discussed in paragraph 11 of the judgment and it was held that the candidature of respondent no.7 had rightly been rejected because he had put 2 identification mark in the answer-book. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “The next contention advanced on behalf of the appellant merits serious consideration. It is manifest on a perusal of the answer-book of respondent no.6 that he has written his full name towards the end of the answer-book covering three pages. After evaluating the answer-book, the examiner has entered the following remarks on page 1 of the answer-book: “Remarks- Name entered at the end” Sd/Illegible 5.6.02 Similar is the position with respect to the answer- book of respondent no.7. He has put his signature towards the end of the third page of the answer-book and the examiner after evaluating the answer-books has recorded the following remarks: “ vUr es igpku fpUg vafdr gS @“ Sd/-illegible Sd/-illegible 5.6.02 5.6.02 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the expression “ lekIr” is recorded there without his signature. In his submission, therefore, the order under review is based on misrepresentation of facts with respect to respondent no.7. He, therefore, prays for review of the said order dated 11.1.2008, and the case may be reheard. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of the judgment that the entire records of the selection process including the answer-books had been called for and were made available to learned counsel for the parties for inspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent no.7 therein) was also afforded opportunity of inspection of the records including the answer-books. No objection was raised there. Secondly, the order was dictated in 3 open court in presence of learned counsel for the parties. No objection was raised. Thirdly, the emphasis in the judgment is that the petitioner (respondent no.7 therein) had provided the identification mark. Furthermore, the order under review has been up-held by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4811 of 2008, at the instance of respondent no.6 of the appeal, and was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.3.2008. In that view of the matter, no case for review of the order dated 11.1.2008, passed in L.P.A. No. 1170 of 2005, is made out. This review application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)