IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.317 of 2008 1. Arjun Poddar, son of Late Laxmi Poddar Resident of Village- Afjuganj, P.S. Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur. 2. Vijay Mandal Son of Late Jhansu Mandal Resident of Mohalla- Basudeopur, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger. 3. Raj Kishore Prasad Son of Late Nagina Prasad Resident of Mohalla-Kawra Maidan, Nai Sadak, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District- Munger. 4. Lali Mandal Son of Late Chhotelal Mandal, Resident of Mohalla-Makshushpur, Kali Asthan, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District-Munger. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary & Commissioner, Human Resources Department, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. Finance Officer, Tilakamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 6. Principal, B.R.M. College, Monghyr. ---------- Respondents ----------- 3 22.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that there has been error apparent on the face record in the order dated 17.3.2008 in CWJC No. 11429 of 2005 directing the University to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of their salary on daily wages for the period 1.9.1999 to 4.6.2003 inasmuch as they were working in the prescribed pay scale even before regularization of service with effect from 5.6.2003. In the opinion of this Court, there is 2 always a clear line of distinction between the scope of review and scope of appeal. A review has to be strictly made in terms of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order 47 thereof. Review can be allowed in any apparent error on the face of record but review cannot be substituted for reversing a finding on merit. Findings on merit will be the scope of an appeal. Here it is a plain and simple case that in the year 1999, the appointment of the petitioners came to be made in a flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioners, thereafter, were sought to be regularized and the University, having issued advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioners had filed application and had undergone the process of selection meant for direct recruitment, were appointed afresh with effect from 5.6.2003. Such mode of appointment thereafter, has still remained subject matter of consideration before the State Government as is clearly stated in paragraph nos. 11 to 19 of the counter affidavit 3 filed in the connected case. In that view of the matter, when this Court had found that the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit had placed reliance on a Pay Fixation Statement dated 20.6.2006, which was a document of a date after the date of swearing of the counter affidavit (22.5.2006), it had passed an order for payment of salary only with effect from 5.6.2003 in the prescribed pay scale. Such Pay Fixation Statement in fact went to show that treating the appointment of the petitioners to be appointed from 5.6.2003 they were given benefit of three increments in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and their basic salary on 20.6.2006 was fixed as 2660/-. This Pay Fixation Statement was never challenged by them rather the same was relied by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit. The statement in paragraph no.5 of the rejoinder affidavit with regard to the alleged case of the petitioner that they have challenged such Pay Fixation Statement is also to be noted for its being rejected because paragraph no.5 thereof reads as follows:- “5. That it is stated that salary for the month of march, April & May 2006 4 has been released on 20/06/06 by the University under the signature of respondent registrar and F.O. of the University but the scale of pay has been reduced without giving any opportunity of hearing and show cause.” Such statement in presence of the documents showing Pay Fixation Statement in view of the order of appointment with effect from 5.6.2003 cannot be accepted as the challenge of the petitioners to the said order in a writ application, as is being now claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, there being no challenge either to the order dated 5.6.2003 by which the petitioners came to be appointed/regularized in service of the University only with effect from 5.6.2003 or to the Pay Fixation Statement dated 20.6.2006 in the connected writ petition, this Court must held that the present review application is wholly misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)