IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.65 of 2009 3 10.3.2010 Rakesh Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years, Son of Sri Alakh Sharan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Miscot (Lane No.4), Bhup Niwas, P.S. Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur .....Petitioner- Respondent- Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Saran Regions, Saran 5. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Siwan .... Respondents- Appellants- Opposite Party -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The review petition has been pressed first on the ground that LPA No.663 of 2005 was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed ex parte on 10.2.2009. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice issued by registered post should not have been accepted to be validly served because in fact, according to petitioner, he never received that notice. Hence, a strong plea was made that the LPA be heard on merits. Realizing that we have allowed Letters Patent 2 Appeal preferred by the State of Bihar on 10.2.2009 under an impression that notice was validly served although nobody had appeared to oppose the appeal, we have given an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and have heard him on merits. On facts, an attempt was made to persuade us to hold the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Ganak in July 1989 to be valid on the plea that earlier he was employed on daily wages and hence, he could be regularized and taken into regular government service even in absence of any advertisement or following due procedure of appointment. It was next contended that in similar fact situation writ petition preferred by one Upendra Narayan Singh was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court and the LPA preferred by the State of Bihar bearing no. 61 of 2007 was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 19.3.2007, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure–22 to the review petition. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 in which the appellant was State of Bihar 3 and respondents included the same Upendra Narayan Singh and others, whereby the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal has been reversed. We are of the considered view that even after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner in this review petition, who was respondent in LPA NO.663 of 2005 we cannot help but uphold the earlier findings that appointment of the present petitioner was against the constitutional mandate and dehors the rules and procedures of appointment. So far as judgment in the case of Upendra Narayan Singh is concerned, as noticed earlier, it has been reversed by the Apex Court and is in favour of the State of Bihar. Hence, we find no merit in this review petition and on merits, we find no good reason to interfere with the earlier order passed by us dismissing LPA NO.663 of 2009. As a result, the review petition is dismissed but without costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J. N. Singh, J.) sk