IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.95 of 2006 Sushila Kumari daughter of Sri Munehswar Mandal, wife of Sri Anil Kumar Sah, resident of Village Balupar (Kurji) P.O. Sadakat Ashram, District- Patna. …… Petitioner- Petitioner. Versus 1. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Seikhpura, Patna through its Director. 2. The Chief Administrative Officer, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Seikhpura, Patna. …..Opposite Parties-Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, Advocate. ------- 06/ 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 31.03.2006 by which CWJC No.4959 of 2000 was dismissed as not pressed. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging office order issued by the Chief Administrative Officer vide letter dated 24.05.2000 directing the petitioner to produce the caste certificate from the office of District Officer, Patna ignoring the caste certificate issued by the District Officer, Darbhanga, otherwise the appointment of the petitioner would be deemed to be cancelled and joining thereon will be rejected. A further relief was sought for release of pending salary to the petitioner and also to accept the joining of the petitioner dated 21.12.1998 and for other consequential reliefs. 4. It transpires that a counter affidavit dated 02.09.2005 was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 making detailed statements. In view of the said statements made in the counter - 2 - affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed on 31.03.2006 by the following order: “In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed in presence of counsel for the respondents.” 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner claims that the writ petition was not pressed under misconception. He argued in detail about the merits of the petitioner’s claim. However, the petitioner had to show that there was an error apparent on the face of record or there was some evidence which he could obtain subsequently to prove the contrary. No such error apparent on the face of record is shown nor any fresh material is produced. Furthermore, from the order under review there appears to be neither any error apparent on the face of record nor any misconception as it was clearly stated that learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition, which he is not denying. 6. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)