IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief granted by the High Court would be restricted to only those who had approached the High Court or the Supreme Court before a certain date, and that general principles of treating similarly situated persons equally could not be applied in this specific context.

JUDGMENT :

The State of Bihar is seeking review of an order dated 23.01.2018, passed in LPA No. 1047 of 2017 (arising out of CWJC NO. 384 of 2017), whereby the said appeal, under the Letters Patent of this Court, preferred by the State of Bihar, came to be dismissed. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench under review reads as under:-

The only objection raised in this appeal is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No59.32079 of 2015, while dismissing the petition of the State Government, has only restricted the benefit to such of the employees who had approached the High Court, but thereafter on liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a petition filed directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.883 of 2016, the matter was again considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in various cases, including M.J.C. No.3765 of 2016 wherein Division Bench considered all these issues and the benefit was granted. Even this Bench on 12.1.2018 in L.P.A. No.1968 of 2016 has granted benefit to certain petitioners who had approached this Court subsequently.

That being the factual position, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. In fact, while deciding the writ petition the learned Writ Court has taken note of all these factors and allowed the benefit to the employees, primarily in view of the Division Bench clarification recorded in M.J.C. No.3765 of 2016 which has been reproduced in extenso by the learned Writ Court, and taking note of all these factors, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

2. We have heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Advocate General of Bihar for the State assisted by Ms. Binita Singh and Mr. Mayashankar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

3. Before noticing the grounds taken in the present review application, we deem it proper to notice the undisputed foundational facts of the case. For the benefit of clarity in the present judgment and order, we have described the opposite parties in the present review application as ‘the writ petitioners’.

4. The Government of India had formulated a scheme in the year 1981-82, popularly known as Non Formal Education Program for imparting Non Formal Education to the children in the age group of 06-14 years, at different centers in the State of Bihar. In order to run those centers, the post of supervisors and instructors were created on fixed stipend and appointments were made in a phased manner. The program continued from 1984-95 and was subsequently extended till 2001, when it was finally closed. The writ petitioners claimed to have been appointed as instructors under the said scheme and the dispute primarily relates to their absorption in regular service in the light of certain directions and orders issued by this Court in different matters as also the orders passed by the Supreme Court.

5. After closure of the program, some of the supervisors had approached this Court by way of filing a writ application, giving rise to CWJC No. 8110 of 2001, seeking directions for their absorption. The writ application was, however, disposed of by an order dated 02.07.2009 in the wake of the statement made on behalf of the State of Bihar that the matter of absorption of the supervisors, employed under the said program, was under active consideration by the Government. This Court, by aforesaid order dated 02.07.2009, while disposing of CWJC No. 81110 of 2001, directed the State respondents to complete the process of absorption of the supervisors. In due course of the time, the supervisors employed under the aforesaid program were absorbed against Class III posts.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, some of the erstwhile instructors, who were associated with the program, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, giving rise to CWJC No. 8418 of 2010, with a plea that they deserve the same treatment as had been meted out to the supervisors and accordingly they also claimed their absorption i