IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7969 of 2003 UMESH YADAV son of Kasturi Yadav, Resident of village Bhawanipur, District Bhagalpur, Pin Code No.,853204. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. BIHAR SANSKRIT EDUCATION BOARD THROUGH Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Patna. ----------- 4 30.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board. When this writ application was filed on 8.8.2003 prayer of the petitioner was made as follows:- “For issuance of a writ of mandamus, any other appropriate writ, order or direction ( as the nature of the matter may require) commanding the Respondents State Authorities to grant approval in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as a clerk in the Raghuwendra Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya, Nawagachhiya, in the District of Bhagalpur, forthwith.” Counsel for the petitioner thereafter has filed an interlocutory application, I.A. No.8358 of 2009 in which he has made the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept this interlocutory application and be further pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the instant writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities for disposing of the representation at the earliest possible (Annexure- 3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, ¾, 3/5, 3/6, 3/7, 3/8, 3/9, 3/10, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 3/14, 3/15, 3/16, 3/17, 3/18 series herein) with reasoned order.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the writ petition of the petitioner was pending the Board, on the recommendation of the Managing Committee of the School, has 2 approved services of one Smt. Rajesh Ranjana and therefore this Court should at least direct the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to decide claim of the petitioner in the light of the repeated representations filed by the petitioner. Unfortunately, there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and even Smt. Rajesh Ranjana has not been made party to this writ application. In such a situation, anything observe against Smt. Rajesh Ranjana or in favour of the petitioner could prejudice either of the parties and therefore, this Court would simply allow prayer of the petitioner to withdraw this application in order to avail the internal remedy to which he has already resorted to by filing representations as referred to in the prayer portion of the interlocutory application. In that view of the matter, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)