IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.184 of 2007 1. Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board Examinees Confederation, Patna through its Secretary, Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, resident of Mohalla-Rental Flat no.396, P.O.- Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbag, District-Patna. 2. Binod Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Hardeo Mishra, President of 1st Intermediate Successful Examinee Union, resident of Mohalla-Rental Flat No.396, P.O.-Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbag, District-Patna. ……..Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. …….Respondents. For the petitioners : M/s S.P. Srivastava, Anil Kumar and Rajeev Ranjan, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Anil Kumar Jha, Govt. Advocate and Sauat Kumar Mishra, A.C. to G.A.2 ----------- 04/ 24.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board Examinees Confederation and another as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This civil review case has been filed on 07.09.2007 for review of order dated 30.03.1999 passed in M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that against the said order the petitioner went to Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4274 of 1999 which was dismissed on 02.09.1999 with the observation that learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was a factual mistake in the said 2 order of the High Court, namely that the report of Shri Biswas was confined only to one particular advertisement and did not relate to other advertisements, hence it was made open to the petitioner to move the High Court by way of review, in case there is any such mistake. 3. From a perusal of the report in question submitted by Shri Biswas in the high Court in the month of July 1993, which is Annexure-5 to the petition of Civil Review No. 76 of 2001 it is quite apparent that the said report was not confined to Advt. No.8/87 relating to the appointment for intermediate level posts but was also with respect to Advt. No.6/85, Advt. No.18/87, Advt. No.19/87, Advt. No.21/87 and so on as would be apparent from page nos. 46 to 57 of the said petition and report and accordingly this court in its order dated 30.03.1999 passed in M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993 which is sought to be reviewed clearly mentioned the aforesaid fact that “ the report of Shri S.N. Biswas, copy whereof was furnished to me in course of hearing of the case, is not confined to only Advt. no.8/87 relating to appointment of intermediate level posts but also refers to Advt. no.6/85, Advt. no.18/87, Advt. no.19/87, Advt. no.21/87 and so on”. Thus it clearly transpires that wrong statements have been made on behalf of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court whereafter the said order was passed and there is no such mistake in the order sought to be reviewed passed by this court. 4. On the failure of the aforesaid point, another point was taken on behalf of the petitioner that in paragraph-15 of the order of 3 this court dated 30.03.1999 passed in M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993 which is sought to be reviewed, this court committed error by holding that parties agreed that in view of the various orders passed in course of hearing of the M.J.C. the question as to whether the order passed in the connected case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1412 of 1992 has been complied with or not so as to warrant initiation of any proceeding for contempt, has become insignificant and the only question to be considered is whether and if so what relief can be granted to the petitioners. So far the aforesaid part of the order in question is concerned, it is only with respect to the statement of the parties with regard to the various orders passed in M.J.C. and there is no denial that at the time of argument of the parties no such statement had been made on behalf of them. Hence, the said observation of this court cannot be legally held to be wrong as the parties were fully independent to make such submissions, which were only noted down by the court while passing the order sought to be reviewed. 5. A very strange aspect of the matter has come into the light that by the said order dated 30.03.1999 sought to be reviewed two cases were disposed of, namely C.W.J.C. No. 5009 of 1993 and M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993. C.W.J.C. No. 50009 of 1993 was filed by Union of Junior Field Investigator Examinees Batch of Bihar Public Service Commission and others with respect to their Advt. no.19/87. M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993 was filed for initiating a contempt proceeding for non-compliance of the orders of this court dated 30.09.1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1412 of 1992 which was filed by 4 Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board Examinees Confederation and others challenging the resolution of the State Government dated 22.10.1991 by which the Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board was abolished and its functions were entrusted to the Bihar Public Service Commission, hence the relief sought therein was limited to the abolition of the Service Selection Board. The said C.W.J.C. No. 1412 of 1992 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 30.09.1992 with the observation that the State Government shall notify the vacancies concerned, which were the subject matter of the writ petition and such vacancies would be notified by the State Government to the Bihar Public Service Commission by 30.10.1992 and the Bihar Public Service Commission was directed to make recommendation regarding filling up such posts on the basis of such vacancy as notified and on the basis of results of the examinations published prior to 22.10.1991. However, this court made it quite clear that it was not going into the question of any case regarding which the results had not published prior to 22.10.1991 and this matter was left for the parties to be agitated in any other proceeding. It was also made clear that the preliminary processing by the Bihar Public Service Commission shall be commenced immediately or immediately after the government notifies the vacancies. 6. Both the said cases, namely C.W.J.C. No. 5009 of 1993 as well as M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993 were disposed of by this court vide order dated 30.03.1999. Against that part of the said order by 5 which C.W.J.C. No. 5009 of 1993 was dismissed, no challenge was made by the petitioners before any court, but against that part of the said order dated 30.03.1999 by which M.J.C. No. 242 of 1993 was dismissed, the petitioner filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4274 of 1999 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, whereas other persons filed L.PA. No. 608 of 1999. Neither the Division Bench considering the L.P.A. was aware that a Special Leave Petition with regard to the same order is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court nor the Supreme Court was informed that a L.P.A. was filed before a Division Bench of this court. However, the said L.P.A. No 608 of 1999 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 01.02.2000. Against the said order passed in L.P.A., Civil Review No. 76 of 2001 was filed by the appellants- petitioners of the said case but the said civil review was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 19.01.2005. 7. So far the order of Hon’ble Apex Court deciding the Special Leave Petition of the petitioner is concerned, it may be noted that it was passed on 02.09.1999 without any information that L.P.A. was pending before the Division Bench of this court against the same order, which was under challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court and to top it all this petition for civil review has been filed after about eight years of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court and after about two and half years of the dismissal of the other civil review petition. 6 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of the petitioner is absolutely frivolous and baseless and there is no occasion for review of the impugned order of this court, specially because there is no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any material is produced to take a different view nor this court finds any other reason to review the decision taken by this court earlier. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)