IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.255 of 2007 Mohan Paswan, son of late Chhatia Devi, wife of late Jamuna Paswan, resident of Sadar Hospital Colony, Bihar Sharif, P.S. Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education Family Welfare and Indian System of Medicine, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate cum Chairman of District Compassionate Committee, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 3. The District Development Officer cum Secretary of District Compassionate Committee, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 4. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 5. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative and Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Under Secretary, Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 8. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 9. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 10. The Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif, Naland … Respondents ----------- 4. 21.7.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground based on death of his mother on 21.1.1996 has already been considered by this Court in the earlier writ application filed by him being C.W.J.C.No. 3430/1997 which was dismissed by an order dated 2.2.1998. The 2 said order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.1998 was also affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal filed by the petitioner by an order dated 22.4.1998 in L.P.A.No. 290/1998. Not only that even a review sought by the petitioner of the order passed in L.P.A.No. 290/1998 was rejected by a reasoned order dated 29.11.1999 in Civil Review No. 224/1999. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to all these earlier proceedings the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti Kumari vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2005(4) PLJR 507, has laid down a law which would be squarely covering the case of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court after the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for the same cause of action has stood dismissed and even a prayer for review has been rejected, there would be hardly any scope for this Court now to take any other view, inasmuch as an inter-party order between the petitioner and the State will bind him. The change of law in the case 3 of Jyoti Kumari (supra) would also not be a ground for entertaining a fresh writ petition. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/