IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20629 of 2011 1. Anjani Kumar Singh Son Of Jai Narayan Singh Resident Of Village-Jagdishpur, P.O. & P.S.-Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Departmentof Building Construction, Government Of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, South Division, Department Of Building Construction, Government Of Bihar, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Department Of Building Construction, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur. 6. The Collector, Bhagalpur. 7. The Collector, Lakhisarai. 8. The Executive Engineer, Department Of Building Construction, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 9. The Executive Engineer, Department Of Building Construction, Government Of Bihar, Lakhisarai. 10. The Executive Engineer, Department Of Building Construction, Government Of Bihar, Sheikhpura. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Siya Rasm Shahi, Advocate For the State: Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to GP 9 ---------- 3. 19.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2011 rejecting his representation to be considered for regularisation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed against a regular sanctioned vacant post. Relying on (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka v. M. L. Kesari) it was submitted that he did have a claim for regularisation. Earlier in CWJC No. 2324 of 2010 preferred for the same relief the Court had permitted the petitioner to pursue departmental remedies. The fresh impugned order is pursuant to the same and thus open for judicial scrutiny. Reliance is placed on (1993) Supplement 4 SCC 595 (S. Nagraj & ors v. State of 2 Karnataka & ors.) and (1994) 4 SCC 422 (Krishna Lal v. State of J & K.). Counsel for the State opposed the writ application to submit that if the previous writ application was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty from the Court to pursue matters in a representation this writ application was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on AIR 1987 SC 88 (Sarguja Transport Service v. Transport Appellate Tribunal) and (1997) 2 SCC 534 (Abinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & ors.). Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to assist the Court on the issue whether Annexure 1 dated 8.5.1991 in support of the claim that he was appointed against a vacant sanctioned post was brought to the attention of the Court in CWJC No. 2324 of 2010. Be that as it may, no liberty was granted by the Court to pursue departmental remedies. On the contrary the Court expressly stated that it was making no observation with regard to the aspect of pursing departmental remedies. It was an unequivocal order finding no merit in the writ application. If the petitioner was aggrieved his remedies lay in pursuing matters before the appellate court only. In the case of S. Nagraj (Supra) at paragraph 18 relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the Court was dealing with an issue that where an apparent mistake in the order resulted in miscarriage of justice the order can always be recalled and technicality of law should not come in the way of justice. In Kishan Lal (Supra) the Court had granted the liberty for pursuing remedy available under law when a suit came to be filed. In Sarguja Transport (Supra) the Supreme Court at paragraph 9 in no uncertain terms held that withdrawal of a writ application without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar a fresh suit 3 but that remedy under Article 226 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner when he withdraws the application without permission. A fresh writ petition was therefore not maintainable in respect of the same subject matter. The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Abinash Nagra (Supra) at para 13. It is not possible for the Court to hold that the fresh order passed by the respondents would vest a cause of action in the matter where the Court originally found none. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)