By the Court.—Under compelling circumstances we are constrained to make detail discussion of the matter in the review application.

2. The writ petitioner has virtually challenged non-consideration of his candidature by the U.P. Public Service Commission in connection with the examination and/or interview for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) being age bar on the strength of the Supreme Court judgment reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 531 (Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others). On 15th December, 2006 in the midst of hearing, as per previous direction, Mr. Vijendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel-ll, contended that he has no objection in accommodating the candidates by allowing them to sit for the examination relaxing age on the basis of the fresh requisition. The Court was pleased to pass an order on 15th December, 2006 on the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment having its binding effect and on the basis of the concession given by the State.

3. After 15th December, 2006 one of us (V.C. Misra, J.) was not attached to the Court, but the Presiding Judge of the Bench (Amitava Lala, J.) was attached to the Court upto 21st December, 2006. On 20th December, 2006 a review application was taken out by one Sri Jagjit Singh, Private Secretary to Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., Legal Cell, High Court, Allahabad, but without any office report and without bringing to the notice of the Presiding Judge of the Bench, directly placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Justice for future assignment and following orders were obtained :

“Nominated to the Bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., but only for so long as neither Amitava Lala, J. nor V.C. Misra, J. is available for hearing any case at Allahabad. 21.12.2006”

“Might be put up tomorrow or until the above availability as convenient to the Hon. hearing Judges. 21.12.2006”

4. In any event the matter was placed before another Division Bench (Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Krishna) on 22nd December, 2006 and such Bench was pleased to entertain the application on the basis of the submission of Mr. Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court, as follows :

“He had argued the matter at length and referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and the Court had also gone through the same, but no reference has been made to the said judgments rather a statement has been recorded that Amit Sthalekar did not advance any arguments, whatsoever.”

5. It is further recorded that Mr. M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission, supported such contention. However, when the matter was forwarded to this Bench for final hearing, Mr. Qadeer contended before this Court that he did not make any such submission.

6. However, fact remains Mr. Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court, belatedly entered in the course of hearing on 15th December, 2006 but did not make any submission far to say about any citation which we repeat and say. No reference of any conflicting judgment was brought to the notice of the Court which dealt with contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Subsequently he explained that he never meant submission on 15th December, 2006 but submission on an earlier date. Mr. M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission, was the lone voice. However, having limited role his attempt became futile. In any event we refrain ourselves from making any comment thereto with a reminder that no certificate is required to say that equal treatment and patient hearing are the soul of the Bench and to show profound respect to judicial verdict of any Bench, if placed, is its training. In further submission of the Counsel cannot be contradicted with judicial observation of a Co-ordinate Bench. If we do not follow such discipline, entire judicial system will be broken. Comity of Judges will