Patna High Court
BiharversusVivek Kumar Upadhyay
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The review application is dismissed as the ground raised is not maintainable; a review must be confined to material available at the time of the original decision.
Summary
The State of Bihar and related education officials filed a review petition seeking to set aside the Patna High Court's order dated 25 January 2024 in CWJC No.16192 of 2014. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of 27 March 2019 (Imran Alam & Anr. v. State of Bihar) which they claim was erroneous and is itself under review in Civil Review No.295 of 2019. The petitioners argued that the pending review of the 2019 judgment should affect the validity of the 2024 order. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, holding that a review must be confined to material available at the time of the original decision. Consequently, the Court held that the pending review of the earlier judgment does not constitute a ground for reviewing the 2024 order and dismissed the review application.
Issues considered
- Whether a pending review of an earlier judgment (Imran Alam & Anr. v. State of Bihar) can be a ground for reviewing a later order dated 25‑01‑2024.
- Whether the review court can consider material not before it at the time of the original decision.
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Supreme Court precedent
- material on record
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.134 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16192 of 2014
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Special Education Director, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Head Master Sri Chandi Jyotish Sanskrit School Bagaha, West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Vivek Kumar Upadhyay Son of Awadh Kumar Upadhyay Resident of Village-
Ahirani Kala, P.O.- and P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/review
applicants/ the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the
opposite party.
2. The instant application has been filed by the
petitioners praying for review of the order dated 25.1.2024
passed in CWJC no.16192 of 2014.
3. It may be observed here that placing reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 27.3.2019 passed
in CWJC no.985 of 2015 (Imran Alam & Anr. vs. the State of
Bihar & Ors.) wherein it was held that the resolution dated
Patna High Court C. REV. No.134 of 2024(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
31.8.2013 had no retrospective application and the petitioner
had been appointed on 13.12.2011, the Court allowed the writ
application by order dated 25.1.2024, review of which has
sought by the petitioners/review applicants in the instant
application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners/review applicants that so far as the judgment dated
27.3.2019 passed in CWJC no.985 of 2015 is concerned, the
Division Bench of this Court erred in deciding the same and as
such a review application being Civil Review no.295 of 2019
has been preferred for review of the said judgment dated
27.3.2019. It is submitted that the instant application be listed
after disposal of the said review application preferred by the
petitioners.
5. It may be observed here that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Kamal
Sengupta & Anr.; (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that in
considering a review application, the tribunal was required to
confine itself on the material available at the time of the initial
decision.
6. Even accepting the submission made by learned
counsel for the review applicants that a review has been
Patna High Court C. REV. No.134 of 2024(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
preferred against the judgment dated 27.3.2019 passed in CWJC
no.985 of 2015 and for the sake of argument accepting that the
said order is reviewed, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred to herein above, in the opinion of this
Court, the same may not be a ground for review.
7. It is for the review applicants/petitioners to pursue
an appropriate remedy as available to them in accordance with
law.
8. The review application stands dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.