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would be that by order dated 14th February, 1995 the earlier writ petition of the appellant was not permitted to be withdrawn, but the same was disposed of with directions as contained therein and in consequence thereof, the lis contained in the said writ petition came to be decided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.)