IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.105 of 2007 SUDHIR KUMAR SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 7.5.08 Heard Mr. J.P. Kishore for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Subagh Singh, learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate No.6. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6256 of 2005 has filed this application under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the order dated 21.2.2007 , whereby the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the writ petition was disposed of on merits, in a situation where none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In his submission, in the event of non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed for non-appearance. It is, therefore, prayed that the said order dated 21.2.2007, may be recalled and the matter may be reheard for a fresh decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment reported in 2008(2) P.L.J.R. 458(Kishori Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) The writ petitioner is a clerical staff of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, 2 and was posed in Central Range, Patna. He was transferred on administrative ground from the office of Exotic Cattle Breeding Farm, Patna, to the office of Assistant Director, Large Cattle Development Scheme (Regional Level), Sasaram. He was relieved on 28.2.2004 and had joined the new place of posting on 4.3.2004. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had reported for duties on 4.3.2004 , but the authorities refused to accept his joining as a result of which his attendance could not be marked. His joining was ultimately accepted on 29.3.2005, therefore, the writ petition was preferred with a prayer to treat his joining as on 4.3.2004 and for the consequential relief for payment of salary. The writ petition was taken up on 21.2.2007 on which date learned counsel for the petitioner was not present. Learned Government Counsel was present, and argued the matter. On a consideration of the materials on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-authorities and the submissions of the Government counsel, the writ petition was disposed of on merits. It was found that the petitioner did report for duties on 4.3.3004, at the transferred 3 place which was accepted, but he remained absent from 4.3.2004 to 29.3.2005 without any notice and leave application. He ultimately rejoined on 30.3.2005. Taking a very lenient view of the matter the respondent-authorities treated this period of unauthorized absence from 4.3.2004 to 29.3.2005 and adjusted against the extra ordinary leave. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. On a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the matter was disposed of on merits. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in support of review of the order are beyond the narrow parameters of a review application. This application is accordingly dismissed. ( S. K. Katriar,J.) Vinay/