IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.16 of 2009 BHAGWAN MAHTO son of Late Bacha Mahto resident of village & P.O. Bisunpura, P.S. Nautan, Jagdishpur, District West Champaran. Versus 1. The Stae of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Secondary Educatin, New Secretariart, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Educatin, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The District Education Establishment Committee, West Champaran, Bettiah, through its Secretary. ------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Krishna Murari & Harish Kumar. For the State :- Mr. Sunil . K. Mandal, S.C. XV ------ 6 04/11/2009 Heard the parties. Order passed in this case on 7.10.2009 shall be treated as a part of this order because the relevant issue has been noticed and highlighted in that order. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in spite of efforts the concerned respondent could not give instruction as to whether the State has preferred any appeal against the order of the Division Bench of this Court (Annexure- 4) granting relief to three other similarly situated employees before the apex Court. As noticed earlier the case of the petitioner is identical to other three persons whose services were also terminated by the order dated 23.12.1999 contained in Annexure- 1. By order dated 12.07.2007 contained in Annexure-2 the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 2000 and the order dated 23.12.1999 was quashed. Against that order the State preferred L.P.A. No. 39 of 2008 which was dismissed in limine by order dated 30.09.2008 contained in Annexure-4. From the orders - 2 - passed in similar matters, particularly annexure-4, it is clear that service of the petitioner and three others was ad hoc in nature with a condition that they shall continue till the regular appointments are made against the posts in question. The Division Bench had noticed that aspect of the matter and had directed the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur to look into the grievance of the petitioner that till the regular appointments are made against the posts, the petitioners should have been allowed to continue as per the initial order. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that this petitioner should also be given the same treatment by the concerned authorities as is being given to three others, namely, Narendra Thakur, Baccha Raut and Virendra Kumar Singh who were also removed from service by the same order dated 23.12.1999 contained in annexure- 1. This Review application is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above only. It is made clear that if the State has preferred any appeal before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment contained in Annexure-1 then the outcome of that case shall also govern the case of this petitioner. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (K. K. Mandal, J.) AMIN