IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.158 of 2007 --- 1. SATYA JYOTI KUMAR, S/O- SRI SATISH CHANDRA RAI, R/O- VILLAGE- SALEMPUR, P.O.- RUPAULI, P.S.- MUSHRIGHARARI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SHIKSHAK IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, MILKY SUAPAKAR, ANCHAL – SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR 2. NISHA KUMARI, W/O- PARMENDRA KUMAR JHA, AND THE DAUGHTER OF BHOLA PRASAD RAI, R/O- VILLAGE SALEMPUR, P.O.- RUPAULI, P.S. MUSHRIGHARARI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, SALEMPUR, ANCHAL – SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BARBATTA, BLOCK – SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT –SAMASTIPUR. 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BARBATTA, BLOCK- SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 11. RATNA MALA KUMARI, D/O- BIRBAL MAHTO, R/O- VILLAGE – SALEMPUR, P.O.- RUPAULI, P.S.- MUSHRIGHARARI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. 12. ASHWANI KUMAR, S/O- ADITYA KUMAR RAI, R/O- VILLAGE – SALEMPUR, P.O.- RUPPALI, P.S.- MUSHRIGHRARI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR 13. RANJIT KUMAR, SON OF RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.S. DISTRICT ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 7. 21.1.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2 This application is for review of the order dated 18.4.2007 passed in CWJC No.1631 of 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering the aforesaid writ application, the important aspect of the matter could not be brought for consideration and as such the order deserves to be reviewed. Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that the order dated 18.4.2007 sought to be reviewed was subjected to appeal at the instance of the State vide LPA No.583 of 2008, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 19th of August, 2008, as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the application for review of the order dated 18.4.2007. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)