JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present Civil Review has been preferred for reviewing order dated 06.08.2018, passed in W.P. (S) No. 502 of 2017, by which writ petition preferred by the petitioners, was dismissed.

3. Case of the petitioners is that they were working as daily wagers and since they were not being considered for regularisation, they preferred W.P. (S) No. 4508 of 2010 for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization in the services in 4th Grade posts in the district of Hazaribagh in view of the fact that they belonged to SC/ OBC category and their names were paneled for the year 2005. Grievance of the petitioners was that the cases of similarly situated persons, though below in rank, were considered for regularization but they were not being considered. Even some of the persons, who had crossed the maximum age limits, were also given benefits of age relaxation following the Rule-54 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code whereas case of the petitioners were not at all considered. The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to file representation and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh was directed to consider the same. When the representation of the petitioners was not considered, they preferred Contempt Case (C) No. 363 of 2016, which was however disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge action of the respondents.

4. Being aggrieved, petitioners preferred writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 502 of 2017 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 25.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby claim for regularization of their services was rejected without considering order dated 04.12.2015, passed in W.P. (S) No. 4508 of 2010. Petitioners had also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give them exemption of age bar in view of the fact that similarly situated persons had been given benefits of exemption from age bar. After detailed hearing, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2018. Being aggrieved, petitioners moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3383 of 2019, which was however dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2019. After order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner has preferred instant review petition.

5. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the respondent nos. 3 to 9 had secured less marks than the petitioners but they were appointed by the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel further argues that though the respondent nos. 1 to 15 were absent in cycling test even then they were illegally appointed by the respondent no. 2. All these facts were available in the writ petition but there was no specific reply by the respondent no. 2 on this point and only by making false submission in the counter affidavit that none of the persons below in rank than the petitioners had been considered for regularization, they have mislead the Court. Respondent nos. 3 to 9 had secured less marks than the petitioners and they were much below in the panel but were appointed and as such, this petition may be allowed. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners had preferred S.L.P. (C) No. 3383 of 2019 against the order dated 06.08.2018, passed in W.P. (C) No. 502 of 2017, which has however been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2019 and, thereafter, petitioner has filed instant application. Learned counsel further places reliance in paragraphs 26 and 28 of the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now known as Khoday Indian Limited) and Others vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (Under Liquidation) Represented by the Liquidator, (2019) 4 SCC 376.

6. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that instead of preferring Letters Patent Appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, petitioners moved before t