IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.183 of 2007 OMPRAKASH SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 7.5.08 Heard Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned junior counsel to Government Advocate No.5. The petitioners of C.W.J.C.No.13264 of 2006, 15 in number, have preferred this application under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking review of the order dated 14.8.2007, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 15 petitioners had jointly preferred the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.13264 of 2006, seeking a common direction to the respondent authorities to regularize their services as school teachers or, in the alternative, to refer their cases for the consideration of the Committee constituted in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1. The writ petition was rejected with the observation that, on the own showing of the petitioners, they were working on contract basis for four to five years. This does not measure upto the yardstick formulated in 2 Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3)(supra). Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred L.P.A. No.730 of 2007 (Om Prakash Singh & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors.), wherein they raised a grievance that the same Bench had passed a different order in similar circumstances in C.W.J.C. No. 13198 of 2006, whereby the petitioners of that writ petition were allowed by order dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure-1) to file a representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was, therefore, submitted that identical order ought to have been passed in the present case also. The appeal of the present petitioners has been disposed of by a Division Bench by order dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure-2), giving the present petitioners liberty to file review application raising the plea of discrimination. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of order dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure-1), disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 13198 of 2006, that the same was a case where the petitioners had set up a case that they had helped the State Government in running the 3 school at a crucial time when there was serious paucity of funds and their contribution was commended. Those writ petitioners did not rest their case on State of Karnataka Vrs.Uma Devi(3)(supra). Therefore, those petitioners were given the liberty to file a representation. On the other hand, in the present case, the petitioners rest their case on State of Karnataka Vrs.Uma Devi(3)(supra). We are, therefore, confined to the parameters indicated in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi(3)(supra). In other words the factual position as well as the basis of the two writ petitions are quite different. I do not see any parity between the two writ petitions. I do not consider that it to be a ground for review of the order. This application is accordingly rejected. ( S. K. Katriar, J.) Vinay/