IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1020 of 2004 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5759 of 1999 ====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondents- Appellant/s Versus Krishna Chandar Sah, son of Sri Jamadar Sah, resident of village-Kurwa Mathian Biashnupur Brit, P.S. Chanpatia, District-West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner-Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, AC to GP-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. L.B.Singh, Advocate Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 12 06-02-2019 Heard Shri Dev Kumar Pandey, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader-2, who, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, contends that there is a distinction between the facts of the case of the respondent-petitioner herein and that which was involved in the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary. That was subject matter of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5003 of 1999. The dispute relates to the continuance or otherwise of the respondent-petitioner as a Class IV employee. The learned Single Judge found that the termination of the respondent- petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Director was non-est and Patna High Court LPA No.1020 of 2004(12) dt.06-02-2019 2/2 without jurisdiction keeping in view the orders dated 21st September, 2000 passed in CWJC No.5003 of 1999. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in the said writ petition, the entire order had been quashed, including that in relation to the respondent-petitioner and other persons whose names were mentioned in the list. This position was not even clarified in the Letters Patent Appeal that was filed against the said judgment which was dismissed. The SLP filed against the same before the Hon’ble Apex Court also came to be dismissed. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no distinction between the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary (supra) and that of the respondent-petitioner. Consequently, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is hardly any factual or legal error so as to warrant interference. Rejected. Sunil/- (Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) U