IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.197 of 2009 DR.VIKAS SINGH, SON OF SRI UMESH PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF RCA-30, NEAR NORTH BOUNDARY WALL OF T.V. TOWER, BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA.-----PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chandrashekhar, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhayay,Advocate For Patna University:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. 4 16 .12.2009 Petitioner has filed this application for review of the judgment and order dated 24.6.2009 passed in CWJC No. 7767 of 2008. The writ application was dismissed as infructuous considering that petitioner has already passed his MD Course. However, in the writ application specific finding has also been recorded on all other points which has been raised by the petitioner in the review application. There is specific finding on the points of malice of fact and law. The finding is recorded also on the point relating to allotment of marks in short cases and long cases, Selection of external and internal examinees, conduction of MD examination in breach of Patna Universities Rules and Regulations as well as petitioner’s disqualification on account of his failure in MD examination. The review application has been filed stating that all these points were not considered by 2 the Courts as escaped from attention of the Court. The Court failed to notice, submission of the petitioner’s counsel on these points. On perusal of the judgment, I find that the ground taken by the petitioner for review of the judgment is not tenable as all points have been duly discussed and finding recorded. Specific ground adopted by the petitioner for review of the order is that the Court failed to consider the consequence of his failure in M.D. examination, simply because he has already passed MD examination and also passed Part –I of MRCP. The Court’s finding was thus that the writ application is now infructuous. I do not find that the last line mentioned in the order, that “writ application has become infructuous” is the only finding recorded by the Court. The Court considered consequence of petitioner’s failure in MD examination. Whatever be the consequence of failure once the finding is recorded that MD examination was conducted as per the rules and regulations, in that case there was no occasion to record any finding that the petitioner will not be deemed to have failed in M.D. (General Medicine) 2005-2008 examination, contrary to other findings. I do not find any merit in the review 3 application, as such it is dismissed accordingly. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar