Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, the learned Advocate for the Revisionist/petitioners and Md. Khurshid Alam, the learned Additional Advocate General No. 12.

2. The petitioners seek review of the judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 372 of 2018 by which, the order of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10679 of 2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioners that they ought to have been empanelled in the later years, especially in 2001 and 2006, when in the empanelment of 1994, they were included, was endorsed and affirmed.

3. The petitioners had approached this Court against the order dated 17.08.2011 of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, whereby he had declared that the panel of 1994 was cancelled; and had further sought directions from the Court that a fresh panel be prepared; they be included in that panel and be given appointment.

4. Be it noted that the petitioners at that time were dailywagers on Class-IV post. For the regularization of such persons, under the orders of this Court in a writ petition and a contempt petition thereafter, a panel was prepared in the year 1994, which included the name of the petitioners along with others. However, in the year 2000, the Empanelment Committee found the list of 1994 to be bad as it contained the names of only one class of persons and that the list was of persons who were ten times more than the vacancy and, therefore, found such list to be invalid. In the year 2000, as it appears from the records of this case, candidates of all the categories were appointed and such appointments were never challenged by either the petitioners or anybody whose name was not included in the later panel of 2000. In later years, i.e., 2001 and 2006, the petitioners were not found to have applied for being included in the list, which list could have been acted upon for giving appointment to persons working on Class-IV post. This claim of the State is sought to be repudiated on the ground that facts on the record reveal otherwise. The petitioners had applied in the years, 2000, 2001 and 2006, which fact was stated by the petitioners in the writ petition, but the same was not taken into account by the learned Single Judge.

5. It further appears that the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioners could not demonstrate that they had applied for being included in the list of different years for it to be acted upon for the purposes of appointment.

6. The LPA Court, based on the averment that such a statement was made in the writ petition but was not appropriately adverted to by the learned Single Judge, examined the entire records in detail and found that there was enough justification for the learned Single Judge to have relied upon the findings of the Empanelment Committee that the petitioners had not applied in the later years, resulting in discontinuance of their candidature. The Appellate Court further appears to have found that the list which was produced before the Division Bench, which presumably was being maintained in the office of the District Magistrate, was not a genuine document as there was no authenticated version of the same and there was no explanation forthcoming as to why the same was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

7. For these reasons, the Appellate Court did not attach any probative value to the list which was produced in appeal by the petitioners showing that they had applied in later years and that the discontinuance of their right to be considered for employment was unjustified.

8. The petitioners seek to agitate the same grounds, on the same set of facts which has been outrightly rejected by the Appellate Court. The petitioners again, relying on a fact situation that persons who were included in the panel of 1994, later found employment in the years 2011, 2012 and 2017, contends that this is a definite ground for presuming that the petitioners had also applied, but their non-inclusion in such lists was either inadverten