IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2734 of 2011 Radha Krishna Singh Yadav S/o Late Chandradeo Singh Yadav, R/o village-Durgachak PS- Kateya, District- Gopalganj at present posted as District Education Officer, Munger, PO & PS- Munger, Distt- Munger----------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt. of Bihar. New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director Administration-cum—Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna---------Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 5.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2011 passed in annexure-3 by Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar. By virtue of this order the seniority of the petitioner has been re-fixed along with large number of other persons as would be evident from reading of the said notification. The Court has gone through the notification as a whole and the detailed background which has been taken note of, which led to issuance of annexure3. Reading of annexure-3 would show that such a requirement was necessary in the light of protracted litigations before the High Court and the adjudication made not only by the learned Single Judge but even affirmed by the Division Bench. If during the course of enforcement of the order passed by the High Court if the petitioner’s seniority had to be re-worked then his contention that he was required to be issued a notice on this count before issuance of annexure-3 is misplaced kind of submission which does not require any consideration by this Court. 2 Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State has dealt with the background to the dispute and the orders which came to be passed, which necessitated the exercise. If that be so, then this Court has reservation whether the Court can up-set the judicial pronouncement which was affirmed right upto the Division Bench by interfering in any manner with the order passed in Annexure-3 which is a follow up action for implementation of the order passed in writs and the LPA. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to an order of status quo which came to be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA (Civil) 4288 of 2011 arising out of LPA No. 595 of 2007 in the case of Arun Kumar Sharma vs. State of Bihar & others. This may not be a good ground for the Single Judge to pass similar kind of order. Remedy therefore for the petitioner would be to move Hon’ble Apex court instead of challenging the decision contained in annexure-3 before the Single Judge with an effort to reopen the issue afresh. There is no merit in this writ application and it is dismissed with the above observation. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)