IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2806 of 2007 VIBHAKAR THAKUR Versus THE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATIONCOUNCIL ----------- 2/ 26/9/2008. Learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner had earlier filed another I.A. No.3372/07. The same is not on the record. The Court requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy of the same. Paragraph-9 of the I.A. reads as follows:- 9. “ That the counsel of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.3233/2002 without consulting the petitioner submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that grievance of petitioner has been redressed when the Inter Council not issued any order granting promotion to this petitioner and thus the writ petition disposed of holding it to becomes infructuous (Annexure-15)”. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. The petitioner came to this Court earlier seeking relief in C.W.J.C. No.3233/02. On 22.7.2005, this Court recorded the order as follows:- “Mr. Partha Sarthy appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner nos.1 - 2 - and that of the petitioner No.4 has been remedied and as such their application has become infructuous”. This writ application was for salary dues in the scale of Deputy Secretary. After the order dated 22.7.2005 was passed, the petitioner on 31.1.2006 wrote to the respondent Council in his letter as follows:- “ In view of the categorical order of the Council, the writ application being CWJC No.3233/2002 was disposed of by order dated 2.7.2005. A photocopy of the order dated 2.7.2005 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-„A‟. It is, therefore, apparent that the stand of his counsel before this Court on 22.7.2005 was based on instructions given by him. He is back before this Court with certain perceived grievances of wrongs done to him. In paragraph-35 of the present application he now states :- “That thereafter the aforesaid case i.e. C.W.J.C. No.3233/2002 was listed on 22.7.2005 and the counsel of petitioner without consulting the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the writ with regard to Petitioner No.2 and 3 and with regard to Petitioner No.1 (this petitioner) and Petitioner No.4 have stated before the Hon‟ble Court that the grievance now redressed, when in fact there is no order promoting the petitioner was passed by the council as yet. Thus the writ petition was disposed of holding the same - 3 - become infructuous”. In his attempt now to raise fresh grounds which have been lost to him, he chooses to make accusation on his counsel. “Reputation is all that a counsel has”. Without reputation a lawyer has no standing in the profession. It is his reputation which counts both, at the Bar and amongst the litigant public. It takes him years to build this reputation and achieve recognition. People like the petitioner, seek to demolish the same in a jiffy in their selfish interest. The petitioner files an I.A. showing that he was a pensioner suffering from ailments and fighting for his dues. He seeks apology. This Court is satisfied that it is not a bona fide and genuine apology, but only a ruse to persuade this Court to entertain the writ application. On more than one occasion in his pleadings he has made accusations at his earlier counsel. Merely by changing his counsel, the petitioner seeks to make out a fresh cause of action. The Court will not permit him to do so. The Court was inclined to impose costs on the petitioner, but considering his retired status, refrains from doing so. The petitioner has only himself to blame. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )