Sarfuddin. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

.....it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1.1. this is an application under section 482 cr.p.c. seeking quashing of order dated 03.07.2004 passed in bihar sharif case no. 26 (m) of 2002. the proceeding under section 125 cr.p.c. allowing rs. 5,00/- (five hundred) per month, by way of interim maintenance to the opposite parties here.2. it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite parties has already been divorced much before filing of case under section 125 cr.p.c. and the same was also confirmed by the competent court in divorce suit no. 06 of 2001 vide ex-parte judgment dated 21.01.2003, passed by principal judge, family court, patna.3. by supplementary affidavit, it has been informed to this court that the ex-parte decree passed in divorce suit no. 06 of 2001 has already been set-aside at the instance of opposite parties and the suit is proceeding hearing, where in also again the opposite parties left attending court.4. it is also submitted that by way of litigation cost the petitioner has been directed by the family court, to pay a sum of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to the opposite parties, but since there was no prayer for adinterim maintenance, there is no order on this account.5. after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to request the court below i.e. principal judge, family court, patna, where the two proceedings, one by way of divorce case no. 06 of 2001 and the instant case under section 125 cr.p.c. is pending to proceed simultaneously or if permissible, merged both the cases with each other. the learned counsel after initial hesitations concedes to resume payment of interim maintenance awarded by impugned order and deposit the same in either of two proceedings, after obtaining due order from the court below.6. permission is granted, with the above liberty and observations this application stands dismissed as withdrawn without any adjudication on merit.