IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.141 of 2008 ***** 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. The Director (Primary Education), Primary, Secondary & Adult Education Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 3. District Education Establishment Committee through the Chairman, 4. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Gaya and 5. District Superintendent of Education, Gaya … Petitioners Versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD SINGH, son of Deodhari Singh, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Shyam Sagar,Meena Anchal, Amas, District Gaya…………………………….. Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 13.01.2009. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Jr. Counsel to Government Advocate No. 1, for the petitioners. The State of Bihar has preferred this Civil Review application for recall of the order dated 14.9.2007, passed in CWJC No. 11502 of 2000 (Raj Kumar Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & ors.), whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the respondent authorities were directed to grant the benefit of pay scale of a Science Trained Graduate to the petitioner with effect from 5.10.1995. It is stated in support of this review application that certain documents could not be placed before the Court. It is further submitted - 2 - that it was desirable on the part of the State of Bihar to file a Supplementary Counter Affidavit in the writ proceedings. On account of failure to do so, the relief was granted to the petitioner to which he is really not entitled. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 14.9.2007, may be recalled, and the writ petition may be heard and disposed of afresh after affording opportunity to the respondent - State to file a fresh counter affidavit. It appears to me on a perusal of the writ proceedings that the petitioner was facing a departmental proceeding because of his alleged unauthorized absence for one day on the date of inspection. In the meanwhile, the Establishment Committee made its recommendation granting the benefit to ten teachers including the petitioner. The benefit was really released to nine of them, other than the petitioner, because of pendency of the departmental proceeding. It was, however, finally concluded in the departmental proceeding that the writ petitioner was bona fide absent on the date of inspection, and he was on leave after taking prior permission. Consequently, he was exonerated of the charges and no punishment was inflicted - 3 - on him. In that view of the matter, this Court directed the authorities to release the benefits to the petitioner. The State of Bihar had filed a counter affidavit. If it wanted to file a supplementary counter affidavit, it was open to it to seek adjournment for the purpose before the matter was taken up. I am, therefore, of the view that the ground raised herein cannot be entertained with in the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The application is rejected. dk ( S.K. Katriar, J. )