IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.261 of 2009 NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, SON OF SHRI CHEDI SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GURKI MANDI P.O. GULZARBAGH, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODHA GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA 3. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA 4. THE PRINCIPAL, J.D. WOMEN’S COLLEGE, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 5. SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, J.D. WOMEN’S COLLEGE, PATNA 6. SRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, J.D. WOMEN’S COLLEGE, PATNA 7. SRI BIRENDRA SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, J.D. WOMEN’S COLLEGE, PATNA ………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- 4. 17.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he had not appeared in the writ matter and, therefore, under what circumstances, counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ matter had confined his prayer for a direction to the respondents for filling up the sanctioned vacant post under staffing pattern after due advertisement etc. and under what circumstances, he gave up the prayer for cancellation of appointment of the private respondents is not known to him. - 2 - Since learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today was not appearing in the writ matter, he cannot submit that that prayer was not made by the counsel who had appeared in the writ matter. It appears that after the writ application was disposed of, petitioner has changed his counsel and is trying to get the matter reopened by filing this review application. This review application is apparently misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand). B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)