IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.106 of 2008 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The General Manager (Telecom) Project C.T.O.Building, Patna. 3.S.D.E (Administration), B.S.N.L. G.M.T.D.Gaya. 4.The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bihar Circle,Meghdoot Bhawan, G.P.O.Patna. 5.The General Manager Telecom,District Gaya Telephone Bhawan G.B.Road, Gaya. Versus RAVINDRA PRASAD S/o Late Chandradeep Bhagat, resident of Village Palibigha Dih P.O.Palibigha P.S.Belaganj District Gaya. ----------- 3 13.5.2009. Heard counsel for the Union of India. This application has been filed by Union of India for review of the order dated 7.9.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.15802 of 2004. By the impugned order, the order terminating the service of the writ petitioner dated 30.12.2003 contained in S.D.E (Administration) Gaya was set aside and direction was issued to the respondents to regularize the service of the writ petitioner in the light of the recommendation of the committee as contained in Annexure-6. Annexure-6 the recommendation of the committee was brought on record by the writ petitioner by way of filing supplementary affidavit. In the review application it is stated that since writ application was allowed only on consideration of Annexure-6 i.e. the recommendation of the committee and Annexure-6 being a forged document as such the order under review is nullity and fit to be reviewed. It has also been submitted by the counsel appearing for Union of India that the counsel representing BSNL in writ application should have taken time to refute or contradict this document annexed 2 as Annexure-6, but in good faith he did not do so which resulted into passing of the order under review. On perusal of the records of C.W.J.C.No.15802 of 2004 I find that Annexure-6 was brought on record by the writ petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit. The supplementary affidavit was sworn on 1.5.2006. Counsel for the Union of India submits that though it was sworn on 1.5.2006, but it was filed some time in the month of March 2007. What I find that the counter affidavit on behalf of BSNL was filed in the month of September 2007. The affidavit was sworn on 5.9.2007. In the counter affidavit there is no whisper that Annexure-6 is a forged document. It has not been stated in counter affidavit that the recommendation of the committee Annexure-6, brought by the writ petitioner on record of the case is forged and there was no such recommendation of any committee as no meeting of the committee has ever been held. The stand which has been taken by the Union of India, in the review application is completely in contradiction of statement in the counter affidavit. No case for review of the impugned order is made. Accordingly this application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra, J) Sss/-