IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10011 of 2005 RAM JIWAN PRASAD s/o Shri Ram Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Bari Badalpura, P. S. and P. O. Khagaul District Patna… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar Patna Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar Patna, Old Secretariat, Hutment, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar Patna, Old Secretariat Hutment, Patna. 5. Sri Baijnath Prasad son of not known, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Old Secretariat, Hutment, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 2. 04.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ or directions to the respondents particularly the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to sanction and pay the scale of copiest on 4000-100-6000 from 8.4.99 after posting instead of 26.11.04 with all financial benefits and has been paid to Shri Baidhnath Prasad, respondent no. 5 as both petitioner and respondent no. 5 were reverted by one order Annexures 7 and 5 respectively in their writ petition as Annexure- 5 was quashed by this Hon’ble Court while annexure-7 was not quashed but direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of copiest. Though the anneuxres 5 and 7 are the same and annexure 5 was quashed on 3.9.04 after the direction given by this Hon’ble Court in case of the 2 petitioner so the petitioner is automatically become entitle to get the same treatment as has been given to respondent no. 5 Sri Baihnath Pd. as Annexures 5 and 7 which are the same is no longer in existence after quashing of annexure 5 and both became entitled to be on their respective old post of copiest and typist with all financial benefits.” Counsel for the petitioner however finds himself in great difficulty in persuading this Court to take a view that this court should pass a similar order as one dated 3.9.2004 in CWJC No. 6290 of 1999 inasmuch as the earlier writ application of the petitioner, CWJC No. 3956 of 1999 against the same impugned order was disposed of by an order dated 20.8.2004 wherein this Court had found no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as against the impugned order. Realizing this position, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be given liberty to withdraw this writ application in order to enable him to file a review application against the order dated 20.8.2004 in CWJC No. 3956 of 1999. This court without expressing any opinion on such submission would only accord 3 liberty to withdraw this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforementioned observation. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)