Order This civil review relates to the never ending controversy with regard to appointment of B.C.G. Technician and Team Leader as would appear from the very bulky records of this review application and the history associated with this litigation, which starts with the appointments made by the famous or infamous Dr. A.A. Mallick in 1983 and in 1987 onwards. 2. Dr. Mallick was Deputy Director and Incharge of Tuberculosis Centre, Health Department, Government of Bihar and is alleged to have made at different times over 6000 appointments mostly on non-existent posts. These appointments, after administrative enquiry, were cancelled en masse by the State Government. By the time these cancellations were effectuated, persons had worked for considerable period as B.C.G. Technician and Team Leader. The matter ultimately reached the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar and others Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1. The Apex Court did not interfere with the en masse dismissal, but then coming to the human problem and the sociological impact issued certain directions for regularization through re-employment to the extent of the posts actually available. In the penultimate paragraph 19 of the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), 12 point directives were issued. Point no. 6 dealt with the question as to who would be eligible for being considered for appointment. It was clearly mentioned that all persons, who were appointed by Dr. Mallick and whose appointments had been set aside irrespective of the fact whether they had moved the writ court or the Apex Court or not, all would be eligible for being considered subject to the condition that they had worked at least for three years continuously. Then in point no. 7, their Lordships provided for the method of evaluation for appointment by award of marks. One of the considerations was that those people, who had earlier received training, would get two additional marks. 3. At this stage itself, I would notice a contention being raised on behalf of the writ petitioners, who are respondents in the review application. The order in the writ proceedings being in their favour and they being opposite parties in this review proceedings, it is urged that as per Government rules and regulations only those people, who had the requisite training, were qualified for being considered for appointment to the posts. The order in the writ proceedings being in their favour and they being opposite parties in this review proceedings, it is urged that as per Government rules and regulations only those people, who had the requisite training, were qualified for being considered for appointment to the posts. The review petitioners, who had been selected and appointed pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, were not so trained and, therefore, were ineligible. 4. Having considered the matter, my short answer would be that if this contention of the writ petitioners is taken to be correct, then such people, who are not trained, could not have been considered for appointment and only those people, who had received training, could be considered. Then what was the sense in the Apex Court awarding two additional marks for the people, who had received training? If what has been submitted is to be accepted, then the said point providing for two additional marks to the people having received training makes no sense. The very fact that the Apex Court in point no. 7 states that two additional marks would be awarded to the people, who had the requisite training, presupposes that amongst the candidates eligible for being considered for appointment, there would also be candidates, who had no training and this presupposes that the people, who had no training, would also be considered for appointment. 5. Unfortunately, when the writ petition was taken up, the Court took upon itself this issue to be decided and decided that the people, who had not received training, were ineligible to be considered for appointment. The Court, thus, then proceeded to cancel the appointments of all such persons, who had not received the said training. The writ petitioners’ case that there were only two institutions for imparting such training; one at Darbhanga and the other at Patna was, in a way, thus, accepted. 6. On behalf of the review petitioners, it is submitted that this is not the import of the Apex Court judgment if points no. 6 and 7 as noted in paragraph 19 of the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) are read in their correct perspective. 7. Having given my full consideration to the matter, I find substance in the contention of the review petitioners. 6 and 7 as noted in paragraph 19 of the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) are read in their correct perspective. 7. Having given my full consideration to the matter, I find substance in the contention of the review petitioners. The interpretation made earlier, without referring to these two points and without considering the import of these two points as put in the review petition, was clearly an error on the face of the records. If what was said in the writ judgment is taken to be correct, then only those people, who had received training from the institutions at Patna and Darbhanga, could apply being the only eligible persons and if they were the only persons, who could apply, then what was the sense in the Apex Court saying that the candidates, who had earlier received training, would all get two additional marks. What difference did it make by awarding two additional marks to every body and every one, who had earlier received training. But one has to keep in mind what the Apex Court says that all persons wrongly appointed by Dr. Mallick and having been dismissed, who had served for more than three years continuously, were eligible and from amongst the eligible candidates, those, who had received training, would get preference of two additional marks. Then whole scheme becomes understandable and workable, otherwise, it leads to absurdity. This fundamental distinction as made by the Apex Court was completely lost sight of in the writ proceedings leading to the unfair dismissal of the review petitioners. Writ judgment was in ignorance of the rational of the Apex Court and as such cannot be sustained and has to be reviewed and set aside. 8. Another reason why I hold so is that the matter was considered by the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short ‘BPSC’), which was the designated authority for making appointment by the Apex Court. They did not disqualify the review petitioners. They formed a panel for being considered for appointment and recommended it to the State with a direction that the State must verify their credentials. State, in its own turn, verified their credentials and holding that they were not disqualified, appointed them. Pursuant to their appointments, they have now been working for more than a decade. They formed a panel for being considered for appointment and recommended it to the State with a direction that the State must verify their credentials. State, in its own turn, verified their credentials and holding that they were not disqualified, appointed them. Pursuant to their appointments, they have now been working for more than a decade. In this connection, I may refer to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, since reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 494, wherein as noticed in paragraph 20 thereof, the appellants had been appointed, they undergone training and had been serving pursuant to their appointment. They were now sought to be unseated on the basis of revised merit list. Apex Court did not approve such stand. This is what the Apex Court said in paragraph 28 : “In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependents but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 9. There is yet another dimension. After the orders of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), when State was dragging its feet, a contempt application was filed. Those contempt proceedings virtually turned into a proceeding for monitoring the implementation of the orders and directives of the Apex Court. Those proceedings were before a Division Bench of this Court. In those proceedings, an affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State taking a stand that there were only two training centres; one at Patna and the other at Darbhanga. In those proceedings itself, the Health Commissioner then filed an affidavit stating that that position was not correct as at other centres like Hajipur and others, i.e. other T.B. Centres, if some one had worked for sufficient period, it qualified him as trained technician. In those proceedings itself, the Health Commissioner then filed an affidavit stating that that position was not correct as at other centres like Hajipur and others, i.e. other T.B. Centres, if some one had worked for sufficient period, it qualified him as trained technician. That affidavit also clearly stated that there were no rules statutory or otherwise or any regulation in vogue providing for training or training centre. If we keep these affidavits in mind then the actions of both the B.P.S.C. and the State can be understood. They had taken stand that any person, who had worked as such for three years continuously, was eligible as per point no.6 mentioned in paragraph no. 19 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. As per point no.7, those people, who had earlier received training, would be awarded two additional marks. Here I would consider one other aspect of the matter also. B.P.S.C. in its affidavit filed in these proceedings has pointed out that if the marks of the four writ petitioners are taken into account and the category, for which they had applied (reservation), and even if they are given as they have to be given two additional marks for having received training from allegedly Patna or Darbhangta and two marks are deducted from other selected/appointed candidates like the review petitioners, the situation would not change; inasmuch even then the four writ petitioners would not have secured marks for selection. The gap between them and the selected candidates was much more than two marks. 10. On behalf of the review petitioners, another issue has been raised. It is pointed out that the total number of posts available, for which B.P.S.C. had to take up the selection process, was 435. Pursuant to advertisement, 1360 people applied and only 915 turned up for the interview. B.P.S.C. recommended a panel of only 321 people. Thus, what the writ petitioners sought to challenge, was the appointment of all those persons within the position of 321, who had no experience or training certificates from the institution like Patna or Darbhanga. Pursuant to advertisement, 1360 people applied and only 915 turned up for the interview. B.P.S.C. recommended a panel of only 321 people. Thus, what the writ petitioners sought to challenge, was the appointment of all those persons within the position of 321, who had no experience or training certificates from the institution like Patna or Darbhanga. Not only all those persons would have been made party, but, in fact, the review petitioners, who were to be directly affected by any order to be passed in the writ petition and whose appointments were directly in issue, would also have been made party, but, in fact, they were never made party while the writ court proceeded to set aside their appointments. In my view, this is directly in teeth of a recent judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ranjan Kumar vrs. State of Bihar, since reported in 2014 A.I.R. Supreme Court Weekly 2968, which has also since been reported in 2014(3) PLJR 128(SC), wherein this was virtually the issue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that in absence of all the parties, whose appointments are sought to be cancelled, writ court could not have proceeded. The review petitioners were not made party in the writ proceedings. 11. For all the reasons aforesaid, this review application is allowed and the judgment and order dated 22.05.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9256 of 1999 is recalled. The writ petition would stand dismissed.