IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5938 of 2009 MAHANTH LAL THAKUR & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 7/ 09/02/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Aggrieved by the termination of his services on 18.11.1997 the petitioners came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11800/97. Following certain other orders of the Court, for non-compliance with principles of natural justice, the termination was set aside. In L.P.A. No.1237/99 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal but granted liberty to proceed afresh after giving of show cause. Fresh show cause notice followed thereafter when final orders have been passed on 27.6.2008 holding that appointments were contrary to law, affirmed in departmental appeal on 7.4.2009. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that their names had also been called for from the Employment Exchange where they were registered along with Ravinder Tiwary and Randhir Kumar both of whose cases had been allowed by this Court. It is fairly acknowledged that in their reply to the show cause these aspects could not be properly highlighted. Learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid two orders presently sought to be impugned do not - 2 - suffer from any error in decision making process and are reasoned. If the petitioners failed to produce materials in their support, that shall not be sufficient ground for the Court to allow them any leverage by permitting pressing of fresh materials. Their failure to substantiate their grounds cannot be construed as a material to interfere with the impugned orders when it is otherwise in accordance with law and based on the materials produced before the authorities. On the record, as it stands, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere or treat the petitioners on parity with Ravinder Tiwary or Randhir Kumar to interfere with the impugned orders. At this stage, leave is sought to withdraw the application to pursue the authorities departmentally on a claim of parity with the aforesaid two persons. Opposing the same Learned counsel for the State submits that there cannot be repeated enquiries on the same issue. There is no occasion for the Court to make any pronouncements on the issue at this stage when the petitioners seek leave to withdraw the application to pursue other remedies. The application is dismissed as withdrawn. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)