IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.76 of 2009 BADRI PASWAN & ANR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 01/09/2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is present. This Court has gone through the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. The present petitioners were respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in C.W.J.C. No.10274/97. Their appointments had been questioned by the petitioners therein. This Court noticed certain orders of this Court in separate writ petitions with regard to the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and the counter affidavit of the official respondents which appear to be at variance with their own stand in certain earlier writ applications. This Court therefore did not interfere with the appointments of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in absence of the necessary court orders. The writ application was disposed with directions to the Director, Higher Education to examine issues of appointment of respondent Nos.7 and 8 therein in light of the directions of this Court in certain other writ applications. Notice was not considered necessary to respondent Nos.7 and 8 since this Court was not interfering with their appointments, but had directed the - 2 - respondent authority to examine issues in light of the earlier orders of this Court. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 preferred L.P.A.No.917/08. Their grievance was that writ application was disposed off without hearing them. The Letters Patent Court on 8.12.2008 granted them liberty for filing a review application, if so advised. Thus the present application. This Court has considered the pleadings made in the review application on behalf of respondent Nos.7 and 8. This Court does not find any reason to review the order reiterating that the Court has not interfered with their appointments, but has referred to the matter to the Director, Higher Education for an appropriate decision in light of certain orders passed by this Court. What order may or may not be passed, whether their appointments may or may not be terminated, are all speculative at the moment dependent on the decision of the Director, Higher Education. This Court finds no merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)