IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.104 of 2007 Sudhir Kumar Verma, son of Sri Kapildeo Prasad, resident of Dahiyawan, P.S. Chapra Town, District-Saran. ….Petitioner-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 5. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 6. The Governing Body through its Secretary, Purbottar Railway College, Sonepur, Saran. 7. The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 8. The Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna-1. 9. The Principal, Purbottar Railway College, Sonepur, District-Saran. ….(Respondents)-Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. P.N.Shahi, Advocate. Mr. Sitesh Chandra Mitra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. G.G.Tiwary, A.C. to A.A.G-II. -------- 04/ 20.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 10.08.2006 by which a bench of this court dismissed CWJC No.3655 of 2000. While dismissing the said writ petition it was found that the College Service Commission recommended two persons, out of whom petitioner was the first recommendee and one Baijnath Rai was the second recommendee. It was also found that the recommendation was made on 03.06.1997 and till the date of order petitioner had not been appointed in the college in question. It was further held that the recommendation made by the College Service - 2 - Commission was valid only for one year in view of sub-section (9) of Section 2 of Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 and the said one year having expired much before the filing of the writ petition on 26.04.2000, the recommendation has become invalid by efflux of time and the petitioner cannot claim his appointment on the basis of said recommendation made by the Commission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Versus Ram Swarup Saroj, reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 1097, claiming that after the recommendation dated 03.06.1997 a writ petition bearing CWJC No.7063 of 1995 was filed on 06.09.1995 by some other persons, namely Dr. Balendra Prasad Sinha and others in which petitioner was also impleaded as respondent no.17 and in that writ petition an order was passed on 05.08.1997 directing the respondents to maintain status quo so far the petitioners of the said writ were concerned. He further submits that the said writ petition was dismissed for default against respondent nos. 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 vide office note dated 30.09.1999 and the said writ petition is pending with respect to other persons. 4. It is quite apparent that the Apex Court passed the aforesaid order in case of Ram Swarup Saroj (supra) only on the ground that the petitioner was found entitled by the High Court for the post and merely because of lapse of time due to the pendency of the writ petition it was held that the petitioner cannot be denied the relief. Such is not a case in the instant matter. Furthermore, the status - 3 - quo passed on 05.08.1997 in CWJC No.7063 of 1995 was only with regard to petitioners of that case and not with respect to the respondents of that writ petition including respondent no.17 against whom the said writ petition had been subsequently dismissed. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any error on the face of record in the impugned order sought to be reviewed, nor does it find any material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)