IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C. REV. No.274 of 2008
RAMASHRAY SINGH, S/O LATE PALAKDHARI SINGH, R/O
VILLAGE- ROPAHATHA, P.S.- NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS.
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KUDRA,
P.S- KUDRA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
..........RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
For the petitioner : M/s Abhoy Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate &
Rakesh Kumar Samrendra.
For the respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
04/ 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for
review of order dated 14.02.1995 (Annexure-1) by which a bench of
this court disposed of C.W.J.C No. 1538 of 1994 observing as
follows:
“After some arguments, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this
application.
Since the petitioner has worked for some time, it is
directed that if in future for filling up posts
advertisement is issued in newspaper, the petitioner
may also apply for the same and if he is otherwise
found eligible and suitable, age bar in relation to the
petitioner shall be relaxed.”
3. Much thereafter, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C No. 7531
of 2001 which was dismissed as not maintainable by a bench of this
court vide order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure-11). Against the said
order passed in C.W.J.C No. 7531 of 2001, the petitioner filed L.P.A
No. 942 of 2001, which was disposed of by a division bench of this
court vide order dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure-13) after arriving at
2
the following conclusion.
” In the circumstances, while we do not
interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal
but make it amply clear that the present Judgment as
well as the Judgment and order under appeal will not
stand in the way of the appellant applying for review
of the said order dated 14th February, 1995.”
4. On the basis of the afore said observation, the petitioner
has filed the instant review petition relying upon the following
portion of the said order of the division bench:-
“In law, the moment, the Court passes an
order permitting withdrawal of an application, which
permission can only be accorded, provided a prayer to
that effect has been made, the court has no paper
before it to record any direction. As such, the logical
conclusion would be that by order dated 14th
February, 1995 the earlier writ petition of the
appellant was not permitted to be withdrawn, but the
same was disposed of with directions as contained
therein and in consequence thereof, the lis contained
in the said writ petition came to be decided finally,
which could only be re-opened by seeking a review of
the order dated 14th February, 1995, but not by a
separate writ petition.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when
order was passed in C.W.J.C No. 1538 of 1994, he was not aware of
the earlier decisions in similar matters and as such an anomalous
situation was created which led him to file the subsequent writ
petition bearing C.W.J.C No. 7531 of 2001. Hence, he submits that a
contradictory position has arisen due to which the division bench
had made the afore said observations while passing its order dated
06.08.2008 (Annexure-13).
6. From a bare perusal of the order under review dated
14.02.1995 (Annexure-1) passed in C.W.J.C No. 1538 of 1994, it is
3
quite apparent that the petitioner had himself withdrawn the said
writ petition and hence, the court had no option but to dispose of the
said writ petition on the said ground. However, the court was
considerate enough to give observation in favour of the petitioner
that in future appointments, if he is otherwise found eligible and
suitable the age bar shall be relaxed. This cannot be termed as
conditional order.
7. Furthermore, since, the petitioner had himself
withdrawn the writ petition, there was no occasion for considering
any other material and there was no question of any anomalous
situation or any contradictory position in law as the order of
withdrawal was as per the wishes of the petitioner himself.
8. Furthermore, there is no direction of the Appellate
Court rather in the concluding portion, of the said order it is
specifically stated by the division bench that it did not interfere in
the Judgment and Order under appeal and it merely permitted the
petitioner to apply only for review against order dated 14.02.1995
passed in C.W.J.C No. 1538 of 1994 (Annexure-1).
9. Considering the matter in its entirety, this court does
not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does it find any
fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this review
petition is dismissed.
Ranjan (S. N Hussain, J.)