IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.29 of 2008 DR.SADANAND JHA son of late Tulanand Jha, resident of village Lakhnaur, P.S. Lakhnaur, District Madhubani … … Appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 1 2. Deputy Secretary(Sanskrit), Human Resources Development Department, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3. Under Secretary(Sanskrit), Human Resources Development Department, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 4. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi 1 5. Registrar, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi 1 6. Deputy Registrar( Academic), Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, 56-57 Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi 1 7. Chairman, Managing Committee, J.N.B. Adarsh College, Lagma Ram Bhadrapur Via Lohna Road, District Darbhanga 8. Professor Incharge, J.N.B.Sanskrit Adarsh College, Lagma, Ram Bhadraapur, Darbhanga … … Respondents ----------- 10. 24.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India. No doubt the writ Court declined to go into the merits of the issue raised by the 2 appellant and did not decide whether the decision made by the competent authority of Union of India contained in Annexures-10 dated 16.11.2005 is correct or not. Instead, the writ petition was dismissed only after noticing that the appellant had approached the writ Court after spending about a year in pursuing a review petition before the competent authority which was also dismissed by an order dated 21.9.2006 contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition. We appreciate the submission that writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had spent some time in seeking review of the order dated 16.11.2005 which had been passed by the competent authority after remand by this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of order contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. That order makes a valid distinction between the employees of the Union of India and the employees of the Institutions known as Adarsh Sanskrit 3 Vidyalayas which are governed by their own conditions as laid down by the respective Managing Committees. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show any provision in the service conditions applicable to the appellant which could help him to claim the benefit of career advancement scheme with effect from 3.2.1989. No such service condition was brought to the notice of the competent authority which decided the matter through Annexure-10 after remand by this Court. In the facts of the case, we are not persuaded to give an opportunity to adduce additional evidence in the matter before this Court. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with an observation that if any validly applicable service condition of the appellant entitles him to the benefit claimed by him, he may seek a review before the competent authority. Kanth ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)