IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.286 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 2301/2000) 1. Birendeo Tiwary son of Late Kamdeo Tiwari, resident of Barhara Kothi, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea, at present residing at Mohalla-Bagdulhan, P.S.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 2. Vijay Kumar son of Shri Jagarnath Prasad Kiran, resident of Mohalla-Magarhatta, P.O.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali, at present working as Lab-Incharge in the Department of Botany, Deochand Colldge, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. .. … Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Higher Education, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur through its Registrar. 5. The Principal, Deochand College, Hajipu, District-Vaishali. 6. The Financial Advisor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ……..Responents. ------- For the petitioners : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate with M/s. Nand Kr. Singh & Arvind Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents- University: Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. For the respondent-State: Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate, A.C. to SC-9. ------------ 15/ 16.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for review of order dated 27.01.2006 by which a Bench of this Court dismissed CWJC No.2301 of 2000 filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 17.09.1999 issued by the State Government. - 2 - 3. A Bench of this Court passed the aforesaid order on the basis of the following findings:- “ It is true that the petitioners continued to work for more than a decade. But it does not appear to be a case that petitioners’ appointment was ever approved nor it can be said to be a case of legitimate expectation of the petitioners that since they were validly appointed, their appointment would be approved by the University authorities and the State authorities. Prima facie, it appears that the University authorities were not satisfied about the appointment of the petitioners nor at the time of the college in question was made constituent necessary records pertaining to appointment of the petitioners were forwarded to the State authorities to accord necessary sanction. Merely because the petitioners got their salary right from 1980 from the college in question, the same would not confer any right upon them. Appointments of the petitioners, in this view of the matter, are held to be wholly without jurisdiction for want of necessary sanction by the State authorities and University authorities, as referred to above.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid findings were against the records of the case as in paragraphs 30 and 57 of the writ petition, the petitioners had specifically claimed as follows:- 30. That the petitioners state that, thereafter, the services of the petitioners have been approved by the University. Accordingly, the University sent the names of the petitioners, along with others before the Director, High Education, Government of Bihar, vide letter no.B/1-7308 dated 18.4.1990 for sanctioning additional posts of Class III and Class IV as per staffing pattern in the year 1990. 57. That the petitioners further state that a further information as required from time to time by the State Government was preferred by the College and the University and such fact further can be borne from the fact that the University sent a list of claimants of appointments against 3rd and 4th Grade - 3 - posts which needed/required to be sanctioned under the norms of the Staffing Pattern, which was already acknowledged by the University and such a detailed chart/list was sent to State Government vide letter dated 7.7.98 bearing no. B/1516 and the petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to annex only a copy of the list for the sake of brevity.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the counter affidavit filed by the University as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in which the said statements of the petitioners were not denied rather it was accepted that the University submitted its report to the State Government for the purpose of approval of regularization of the working staff as per the staffing pattern giving details of employees which is apparent from the letter of the University dated 07.07.1999 (Annexure-25) of the writ petition in which both the petitioners are included at serial no.6 and 14. He also relied upon letter of the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Bihar dated 18.09.1999 (Annexure-28) sent to the Vice Chancellor of the Bihar University acknowledging the letter of the University and giving the list of such candidates in which the names of the petitioners find place including another candidate, namely Kamali Devi. It is also claimed that the aforesaid Kamali Devi also filed a writ petition bearing CWJC no.222 of 1999 and a Bench of this Court considered the matter in detail and disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 08.05.2000 (Annexure-1) setting aside the aforesaid letter of the Government dated 18.09.199 so far it related to Kamli Devi. The said order was passed with the following observations. “ In the facts and circumstances, as the case of the petitioner has not been considered because of non-production of relevant evidence, I set aside the - 4 - order contained in letter dated 18.9.1999 (Annexure-19) so far it relates to petitioner and remit the matter to the respondents. The University will send one of its officer to the college concerned, who will verify records of the college relating to appointment of petitioner as also the attendance register. On such enquiry, such officer will submit a report before the University relating to appointment of petitioner and her continuance within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Principal of the college is to cooperate with the officer concerned. The University in its turn will forward such report to the Secretary, Higher Education for consideration of case of petitioner for regularization of service, if found to be working against sanctioned post/deemed sanctioned post, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such report. The Secretary, Higher Education on behalf of State will consider the claim and communicate the decision within three months thereof. A final decision to be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of 7 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that if the service of petitioner is regularized, she will be entitled the consequential benefit, including the arrears of salary for the period she has actually performed the duty.” 6. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, but from the facts, which are apparent from the record it is quite clear that in the impugned order error of record has crept in due to non-consideration of the admitted facts and also due to non- appreciation of an earlier decision of this Court in exactly similar matter. 7. Considering the aforesaid matter in its totality, this - 5 - Court finds error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order and, accordingly, the said order is hereby reviewed and recalled. 8. Let CWJC No.2301 of 2000 be placed before an appropriate Bench after obtaining permission from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)