IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2113 of 2008 SINGHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 04/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 8.11.1983 vide order dated 27.12.1986. He is aggrieved by the denial of second time bound promotion. The petitioner retired from service in 1998. There is no explanation in the writ petition why he did not pursue his remedy appropriately for a period of 10 years after his superannuation till he filed the present application in 2008. If his contention that he was pursuing his representation be correct even that was rejected on 8.8.2006 vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit duly communicated to the petitioner raising a presumption under Article 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. There is no rejoinder filed denying that it was not received by him. The writ petition has been preferred nearly two years after the communication made to him of his rejection, if the order dated 2 8.8.2006 can be construed as condoning the delay of 10 years in filing the original writ application. In that view of the matter learned counsel prays for leave to withdraw the application to approach the authorities to persuade them that in fact the order dated 8.8.2006 was never received by him. The application appears barred by delay in any event of the matter. The application is dismissed as withdrawn. Any fresh orders passed by the authorities hereinafter shall be circumscribed by the orders of the Supreme Court in 2008 (10) SCC 115 (C.JACOB VERSUS DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER) in so far as the petitioner claiming a fresh cause of action upon the same is concerned. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)