VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS civil review has been filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and others for reviewing the order dated 1.5.2003 passed in CWJC No. 4094 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder this Court, on consideration of the materials on the records, directed the followings : 'In that view of the matter, it is directed that the respondent shall complete the selection process of appointment of Field Assistant -cum -Technicians within a period of two months hereinafter and if the petitioner, who has served in the department for last 13 years and is in the panel the respondents will consider his case for his appointment on regular basis and if the respondent pass any adverse order they will give reason for that with a copy of that order to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty, if aggrieved by that reason to come to this Court.' It also appears that as there was a panel prepared in pursuance of some advertisement taking place in the year 1990, that direction was given.
(2.) THE review petition mainly has been filed on two grounds - (i) the writ petition was filed in the year 2000 prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the respondents at that time were the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and others and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board came into being on 9.9.2001 but the petitioner in the writ petition had not made the newly created authorities of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board respondents by amending the writ petition and after creation of such authorities, the respondent Bihar State Pollution Control Board lost its control over the officials/employees posted in Jharkhand and (ii) during the pendency of the writ petition, the panel was cancelled and consequently, the order of this Court passed in the writ petition (impugned order) became unexecutable and as this fact was not known to the petitioner, this was not brought on record. The Review Petition was resisted by the writ petitioner on the ground that even after creation of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the concerned authorities of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board used to exercise their jurisdiction in respect of the officials/employees posted in the area of Jharkhand and in support of that, a number of documents have been filed. The further ground for resisting this prayer was that after creation of the State of Jharkhand, it was the duty of the writ respondents to make prayer for amendment by adding those newly created Board and the new State as respondent as this was not within the knowledge of the writ petitioner.
(3.) THE question of review of an order always rests in a very narrow boundary. It is not an issue whether or not after creation of Jharkhand State and subsequent constitution of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the parent Board, the exercised authority in respect of the personnels posted in the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State. It is also not the issue whether it was legal or illegal if the Bihar State Pollution Control Board passed certain order and that was obeyed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The main question rests on discovery of a new fact, which, according to the respondents, was not known during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the entire process of appointment pursuant to the advertisement, in consequence of which the panel had been prepared, was cancelled much prior to the date of passing of the impugned order by order dated 7.7.2001, fide Annexure A. If the whole process of appointment was cancelled prior to the final order passed in the writ petition, then obvious it is that the order that was passed and was expected to be executed could not have been passed, had this fact been brought on record either by the writ respondents or by the writ petitioner. So this order has been passed without considering this fact, which was not on record at that time as the petitioners say they also did not know it. Thus, the order aforesaid (of cancellation) was not produced by the respondents at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Relying on the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors., I feel that in face of this eventuality, which was not in knowledge of the learned counsels for the parties, the review becomes maintainable. Consequently, the review is allowed. The consequence of allowing, this review is that it also cannot be held that after passing of the impugned order, the cancellation was ordered so as to make the order unexecutable. The question may arise whether or not the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and other authorities of State of Bihar were competent to cancel the panel even in respect of those employees who were posted in the State of Jharkhand and claim that their names would not have been cancelled after creation of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, This is a question of law and can be answered by an appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding, but not in this review petition. The original writ petitioner will have the liberty to agitate this matter afresh.;