LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-293

LALAN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 28, 2018
LALAN PRASAD Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the applications referred above, petitioner is the same person, and almost identical relief has been sought for by filing such applications, therefore, after analogous hearing, both the applications are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) M.J.C. No. 1893 of 2015 2. MJC No. 1893 of 2015 has been filed for modification of the order dated 18.03.2015 passed in Civil Review No. 51 of 2011(arising out of L.P.A. No. 1621 of 2010) by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner has sought modification in view of the contentions made by the answering respondents in another Civil Review No. 37 of 2013, filed by the review petitioner in connection with C.W.J.C. No. 21380 of 2012. The contention of the review petitioner is that the answering respondents therein, had contended in the said Civil Review No. 37 of 2013 that the order under challenge, in C.W.J.C. No. 15909 of 2009 was never been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, rather it was merely a suggestion vide Letter No. 757 dated 07.03.2008 to the concerned Selection Committee as to rectify the mistake and such fact was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, thus the order dated 18.03.2015 in Civil Review No. 51 of 2011 came to be passed on the incorrect premise that letter dated 07.03.2008 was a termination order, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Saran.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it would be evident from 'Annexure-6' to the L.P.A. No. 1621 of 2010 that the enquiry in question was made by the Block Education Officer, Masrakh, Saran, at the instance of Block Development Officer, Masrakh, Saran, which was never challenged by the writ petitioner. It was also submitted that the order dated 12.08.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15909 of 2009 was an ex-parte order, and such grounds taken in the connected intra-court appeal L.P.A. No. 1621 of /2010 as well as Civil Review No. 51 of 2011, remained uncontroverted. Civil Review No. 441 of 2016