IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12326 of 2008 PRADEEP RAI, S/O SRI RAM SHARAN RAI, R/O SAHGANJ (BENTA), P.S.-BENTA (LAHERIASARAI), DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MADHUBANI. 6. THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN-CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 17.08.2011 It appears from the pleadings made in paragraph 17 and 18 of the writ application that the petitioner was terminated from service by order contained in annexure-7 dated 10.07.1995. He moved this Court against the said order in CWJC No.8699 of 1995 which was dismissed on 26.11.1995. Against that petitioner moved in appeal which was also dismissed by a Division Bench. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity for consideration of his case in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [2006(2)PLJR (SC) 363]. 2 The observations and directions of the Constitution Bench contained in paragraph 44 (paragraph 53 of SCC) has been considered and explained by a Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. M.L.Kesri [(2010) 9 SCC 247]. The Division Bench of the Apex Court has held that only those persons who had continued and completed 10 years of service as on the date of Constitution Bench judgment (10.04.2006) are entitled to be considered in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the said paragraph 44. The petitioner was terminated much prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench. His all challenge to the said termination order in this Court has failed. In the circumstances, the matter having been decided on merits much before the Constitution Bench judgment was delivered, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench judgment in the said paragraph 44. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)