IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4761 of 2010 1. INDRAJEET KUMAR ARYA S/O LATE CHANDRADEO DAS R/O WEST JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, P.S.JAKKANPUR, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER -CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, HOME COMMISSIONER , HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DEPUTY , HOME (SPECIAL), DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL )DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT CELL), ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 7. THE CHAIRMAN , STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE SECRETARY , ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT STATE OF JHARKHAND , RANCHI 9. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIVANCES AND PENSION, (PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT) GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI ----------- 2. 05.04.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a joint application with one Raju Choudhary for mutual transfer to Jharkhand and Bihar respectively after final allocation. As prayed for liberty is granted to implead Raju Choudhary as private respondent no. 10. The Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to respondent no. 10. An application for mutual transfer submitted jointly by two persons, the petitioner and the newly added respondent no. 10, cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner alone. The withdrawal application has also to be necessarily mutual. If the petitioner and respondent no. 10 submit a fresh application in connection with the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 rejecting the petitioner’s unilateral withdrawal, it shall naturally no more be surviving factually when the respondents shall be required to consider the same in accordance with law. Any act on the part of the respondents in accepting the unilateral withdrawal of the mutual application with respect to certain others, as alleged on the part of the petitioner, cannot be a ground to grant similar relief when this Court is satisfied that action of the respondents in that regard are not in accordance with law. The Court declines interference with the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 on the present facts. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)