Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 8th August, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8193 of 1994 (Kameshwar Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.). 3. For disposal of this application, it would be necessary to notice certain facts. The writ petitioners prior to filing of C.W.J.C. No. 8193 of 1994 had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7584 of 1988 for issuance of direction to the respondents to give them pay scale and implement the 4th Plan Pay Scales, as per the decision of the State Government, as contained in letter no. 184 dated 25.5.1971. In the writ application no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-State. However, the same was allowed on contest by judgment dated 15.1.1992 holding that the petitioners were entitled for fixation of their pay and scale in the same manner in which it was fixed with respect to the teachers and instructors of the Colleges, namely, R.D.S. College, Muzaffarpur, and Munshi Singh College, Motihari. 4. The judgment of this Court, however, was not appealed against by the State-respondents and in compliance of the direction, the State-respondents fixed the pay scale of the petitioner vide letter no. 785 dated 31.7.1992, which subsequently, was cancelled vide order dated 9.2.1994. 5. Order dated 9.2.1994 was challenged by the same set of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8193 of 1994. The writ application on contest was again allowed reiterating the earlier view taken by this Court in the earlier writ application and held that the petitioners were entitled for the salary, as was fixed pursuant to letter no. 785 dated 31.7.1992 and the respondents were directed to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the same manner, as was paid to them pursuant to letter dated 31.7.1992 aforesaid. 6. The petitioners by this review application now pray for review of the judgment dated 8th August, 1997 passed in the subsequent writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 8193 of 1994. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly has tried to impress upon the Court to review the impugned judgment on facts. 8. However, no case has been made out for review of the judgment impugned nor any error apparent at the face of the judgment is being pointed out. 9. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly has tried to impress upon the Court to review the impugned judgment on facts. 8. However, no case has been made out for review of the judgment impugned nor any error apparent at the face of the judgment is being pointed out. 9. The judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8193 of 1994 is based on the earlier judgment of this Court dated 15.1.1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7584 of 1988. 10. From the impugned judgment, it appears that this Court virtually allowed the writ application and issued directions for compliance of the earlier direction issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7584 of 1988. The earlier judgment of this Court since was not challenged either in Letters Patent Appeal before this Court or in Special Leave to appeal before the Apex Court, in my opinion, the petitioners should not be allowed to reopen the matter for review of the impugned judgment. 11. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application. 12. In the result, this application is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.