IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.99 of 2006 Ram Narayan Mishra son of Sri Brahma Bishnu Mishra, resident of village- Babupur, P.S. Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur. …………... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri G.S. Kang, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The State of Jharkhand through Sri P.P.Sharma, Chief Secretary, having office at Ranchi. 4. Sri P.N.Narayanan, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Department of P.H.E.D., Patna. 5. Sri Surendra Kumar, Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. ( Mechanical) Bihar, Patna. 6. Sri Keshari Bhagat, Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D. Mechanical Circle, Bhagalpur. 7. Md. Rehman, Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Mechanical Circle, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 8. Sri Kamendra Rai, Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Dumka. ……… Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. A.B.Ojha, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : J.C. to G.P.VIII. ------- 6/ 15-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This petition has been filed for review of order of this Court dated 17.04.2006 by which M.J.C. No. 1990 of 2005 was disposed of on the assumption that earlier order of this Court dated 04.02.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 2000 has been complied with and there remains nothing further to be done in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr. A.B.Ojha, submits that he had filed the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 1990 of 2005 but his name did not appear on the daily cause list due to which he could not mark the list and also could not appear to show the falsity of the claim of the respondents that the order has already been complied. From the averments of the parties it transpires that in M.J.C. No. 1990 of 2005 was filed by four learned - 2 - Advocates, namely, M/S A.B.Ojha, S.N.Jha, R.Tiwary and J.Kr.Tiwary and on the daily cause list dated 17.04.2006 names of two learned counsel, namely, M/S S.N.Jha and J.Kr. Tiwary, Advocates , were clearly mentioned and hence it was their duty as Advocates on record to appear in the court and their failure cannot be made a point in their favour. Furthermore, by order dated 04.02.2005 C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 2000 was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law if they have not yet considered the same and to communicate to the petitioner their decision within 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of the order upon them. It transpires that an order with regard to petitioner was passed by the authorities concerned on 21.11.2005 which was annexed as Annexure-C to the show- cause filed by the respondents in the said M.J.C. case. Now learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of the authority was not in accordance with the requirements of law and specific directions of this Court. In the said circumstances this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record in order dated 17.04.2006 as some order had been passed in compliance of order dated 04.02.2005 passed in the writ case. However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the said order of the authorities dated 21.11.2005, he may challenge the same before any appropriate forum. In the said circumstances, this civil review petition is disposed of. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)