JUDGMENT By the Court.—This review application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2006, by which the advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been quashed. 2. The review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that a similar controversy had earlier arisen in respect of the last selection. Matter was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 531. The advertisement in question was challenged before this Court by filing large number of writ petitions and the same controversy was decided by this Court following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 59948 of 2006, Gopal Krishan Tiwari and others v. State of U.P. and others, vide judgment dated 2.11.2006 and the writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, large number of petitions were also heard and dismissed particularly Writ Petition No. 60154 of 2006, Kamlesh Kuchhal v. State of U.P. and others, by a Division Bench (consisting Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta), vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2006. The same has been the fate of Writ Petition No. 60318 of 2006, Vijender Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 6.11.2006 by the Bench hearing the present petition. The earlier judgments were cited as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing in the review petition. Shri Amit Sthalekar appearing for the High Court made a statement at the bar that 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. 2. Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission also made the same submission. Petition has been decided only on the purported concessions made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel (II) without reference to the statutory provisions under which the recruitment was sought to be made and, therefore, the review is maintainable. According to the learned Counsel for applicant, Rule 10 of the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Rules, 2001 provides for eligibility of age in the examination and there is no statutory provision granting relaxation of age at the time of recruitment. According to the learned Counsel for applicant, Rule 10 of the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Rules, 2001 provides for eligibility of age in the examination and there is no statutory provision granting relaxation of age at the time of recruitment. Rule 35 of the said Rules 2001 provides for relaxation for conditions of service in specific individual case which is distinguishable from the recruitment process, therefore, the review petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Shri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate, Shri C.L. Pandey, Shri Rakesh Pandey and Smt. Sadhana Upadhyaya, Advocates, duly assisted by Shri Arvind Srivastava have opposed the application vehemently contending that the review petition is to be heard by the same Bench which has decided the case. Nomination made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Bench is not in consonance with the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Therefore, the nomination made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice itself is bad. The review application is not maintainable for the reason that the judgment is based on the concession advanced by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, the review application is liable to be rejected. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. So far as the nomination of the Bench is concerned, there is no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the Hon’ble the Chief Justice is the master of the roaster who has unfettered and unhindered power to constitute the Bench, fix a matter before a particular Bench and withdraw the same even if the matter is Tied Up or Part heard and list it before any other Bench in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and others, AIR 1998 SC 1344. A Full Bench judgment of this Court has taken a same view in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1996(2) AWC 644. 7. Chapter V Rule 12 of the Rules, 1952 deals with the disposal of the application for review and it reads as under : “12. A Full Bench judgment of this Court has taken a same view in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1996(2) AWC 644. 7. Chapter V Rule 12 of the Rules, 1952 deals with the disposal of the application for review and it reads as under : “12. Application for review.—An application for the review of a Judgment shall be presented to the Registrar, who shall endorse thereon the date when it is presented and lay the same as early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered alongwith an office report as to limitation and sufficiency of Court fees. If such Judge or Judges or any one or more of such Judges be no longer attached to the Court, the application shall be laid before the Chief Justice who shall, having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XLVII of the Code, nominate a Bench for the hearing of such applications : Provided that an application for the review of a judgment of one Judge who is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the presentation of the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, shall be heard or disposed of by a single Judge, and that an application for the review of a judgment of two or more Judges, any one or more of whom is or are precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the presentation of the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, shall be heard or disposed of by a Bench consisting of the same or a greater number of Judges. Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule the expression ‘no longer attached to the Court’ shall be deemed to include absence from the permanent place of sitting on account of the directions given under Rule 17 of this chapter illness or any other cause.” 8. A plain and simple reading of the said Rule makes it clear that no longer attached to the Court means a Judge is not available for The reason that he is sitting before the Lucknow Bench or not available for illness or any other cause. A plain and simple reading of the said Rule makes it clear that no longer attached to the Court means a Judge is not available for The reason that he is sitting before the Lucknow Bench or not available for illness or any other cause. Thus, in case the Judges, who have decided the petition, are not available and the urgency of the case demands, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice can nominate another Bench to hear the review application also. 9. In the instant case, the urgency had been pointed that the examination has been fixed on 31.12.2006. Forty Thousand (40,000) applicants have been issued admit cards. Large number of centres have been fixed for holding the examination. Extensive arrangements have also been made and considering the same the Hon’ble the Chief Justice passed the following order of nomination : “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. Might be put up tomorrow or until the above availability as convenient to the Hon. Hearing Judges.” 10. Admittedly, none of the Hon’ble Judges who have decided the writ petition is available at Allahabad. Today, being the last working day before the winter vacation, i.e. 1st January, 2007, and the examination has to be held on 31.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that the nomination by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice cannot be challenged on any ground, whatsoever, and the submissions made in this regard are preposterous and we are bound by the nomination made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 11. Mr. Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court has raised the grievance that in spite of the fact that he had argued the case at length and referred to and relied upon large number of judgments which were perused by the Court, the findings recorded to the contrary can be challenged only in a review application. 12. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar case, held as under : “We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena......if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party.......to call the attention of the very Judges........" 13. While deciding the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30; and Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136. In the latter case, it has been observed as under : “Judgment cannot be treated as mere contours in the game of litigation.” 14. A similar view had been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra v. Bibhabati Debi, AIR 1971 Cal. 584, observing that the record of the Judge is conclusive and it is not permissible either for the lawyer or litigant to contradict it except by moving application before the same Judge. 15. In King Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose, AIR 1924 Cal 257, the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court reiterated the same view observing that the judgment of the Court “is not to be criticized or circumvented; much less has to be exposed to any animad version.” 16. Similar view has been reiterated in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, AIR 1954 SC 526 . 17. In Union of India and others v. N.V. Phaneendran, 1995 (6) SCC 45 , the Apex Court has held that if a party has taken various grounds before the Court below and not made submissions on all of that, it is not even desirable to remit the matter to the said Court. The Court held that “no doubt, several contentions had been raised on merit, the Tribunal dealt with only one issue. The prayer of the party that they may be given an opportunity to agitate those issues/questions by remitting the matter to the Tribunal, cannot be accepted as the party itself had chosen to agitate a limited number of issues and there can be no justification to remit the matter.” 18. The prayer of the party that they may be given an opportunity to agitate those issues/questions by remitting the matter to the Tribunal, cannot be accepted as the party itself had chosen to agitate a limited number of issues and there can be no justification to remit the matter.” 18. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, (1997) 4 SCC 662 ; and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. and others v. P. Surya Bhagwan, 2003 AIR SCW 2616. 19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, it emerges that the writ Court cannot conduct the enquiry as to what issues had been agitated before the Court behind and if a party is aggrieved that some of the issues agitated by it have not been dealt by the said Court, the only remedy available to it is to file an application of Review before the Tribunal before the said Hon’ble Judge as those issues cannot be dealt with by the Court in Special Appeal. 20. More so, it is a settled legal proposition that a Coordinate Bench is bound by the judgment of the larger Bench and also of the earlier judgment of the coordinate Bench. However, if for any reason, it does not want to follow the same, the only option left with the Court is to make reference to the larger Bench. (Vide Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, AIR 1959 SC 1041 ; Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and another, (2003) 8 SCC 134 ; Babu Parasu Kaikadi v. Babu. (2004) 1 SCC 681 ; and Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, (2005) 2 SCC 261 ). 21. It has also consistently been held that a wrong concession by a Counsel on question of law does not bind the client or any person as there can be no estoppel against the Statute. (Vide Dr. H.S. Rikhy and others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554 ; Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal and others, AIR 1964 SC 377 ; Union of India and another v. K.S. Subramanian, AIR 1989 SC 662 ; Dr. (Vide Dr. H.S. Rikhy and others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554 ; Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal and others, AIR 1964 SC 377 ; Union of India and another v. K.S. Subramanian, AIR 1989 SC 662 ; Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and another, (1998) 2 SCC 502 ; Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and another, (1998) 2 SCC 523 ; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others, (1999) 6 SCC 464 ; Jagdish Lal v. Parmanand, (2000) 5 SCC 44 ; Laxmibai (Smt.) v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Bangalore, (2001) 5 SCC 59 (Para 13); Union of India and others v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi and others, AIR 2004 SC 1704 ; and Union of India and another v. S.C. Parashar, 2006 AIR SCW 2068. 22. It may also be pertinent to mention that Rule 10 of the Rules, 2001 provides for eligibility in respect of age. The petitioner is admittedly over age in view of the provisions contained in Rules 2001. There is no provision for grant of relaxation as Rule 35 of the Rules 2001 is not attracted as it is applicable in an individual case after selection for relaxation of a service condition. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 284 , held that recruitment procedure is quite distinguishable from the service condition and further relaxation is permissible only in service condition that will not apply to the recruitment process. 24. In view of the above, the review petition requires consideration and is admitted. The operation of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 be kept in abeyance for the reasons explained hereinabove as all the steps have been taken by the Commission to fill up the vacancies and this Court while rejecting the writ petition earlier vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2006 has also emphasized that the State is suffering from acute shortage of Judicial Officers, as in the facts and circumstances of the case an identical matter has been referred to the larger Bench by order of date passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69148 of 2006, Shikha Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and another. 25. Writ Petition No. 69148 of 2006, Shikha Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and another. 25. It would be desirable that those candidates whose applications were taken by the Commission and rejected on the ground of being overage, may be permitted to appear provisionally, provided that they have not earlier approached this Court unsuccessfully. However, their results shall not be declared till further orders and their appearance would be subject to the decision of the review application. ———