JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. L.P.A.No.735 of 2018 & L.P.A. No.747 of 2018 Both the appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court and are directed against the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) No.443 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018, by which, the writ petition has been allowed to be withdrawn by the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners before the writ Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents, has been rejected by dismissing the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 2. The fact arises for filing these Letters Patent Appeals are that the writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 for the following reliefs:- (a) For grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus to order/direct the respondent no.2 to struck down Question No.54, 82 & 41 in question booklet No.73A corresponding to Question No.11,71 & 108 question booklet No.73B, Question No.88, 62 & 90 in question booklet No.73C and Question No.114, 17 & 110 in question booklet No.73D asked in Paper No.III of Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Exam 2017 for want of correct option; (b) For grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to struck down question No.36,48,34,41,38,7,74,26,59,8 & 12 in question booklet No.72A corresponding to question no.58,2,23,41,38,45,77,21,51,36 & 43 in question booklet No.72B similarly question No.31,2,23,37,9,36,75,13,16,47 & 51 in question booklet No.72C and question No.9,14,10,28,36,56,75,27,44,26 &24 in question booklet code 72 D asked in paper No. II in Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Exam 2017 being out of syllabus and wrong in respect of its advertisement being Advertisement No.09/2017; (c) For grant of a direction to Respondent No.2 to award one marks each to every disputed question and publish a revise result; and (d) For a direction to the Respondent No.2 to enhance the marks obtained by the petitioners as per the revised result so published. 3. The writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.08.2018 and after making some argument, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. 3. The writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.08.2018 and after making some argument, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, which has not been objected by the learned counsel representing the respondents and accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, for ready reference, the aforesaid order is being referred hereinbelow:- “After some argument, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for the same. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.” The writ petitioners, thereafter, have filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC for grant of recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018. The aforesaid petition has finally been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by passing an order on 23.10.2018 and the ground agitated therein has been found to be not acceptable to the writ Court and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been dismissed, for ready reference, the order dated 23.10.2018 reads hereunder as:- “The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition (for short „C.M.P.?) has been filed for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. From perusal of the records, it appears that at the very outset, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a prayer for withdrawal of the writ and learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the same and in view of fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The original writ petition being W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioners challenging the questions asked in the Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017, alleging therein that some of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus. However, it is crystal clear that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S).568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. However, it is crystal clear that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S).568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which this Court, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties had dismissed the said writ petition vide its order dated 18.04.2018, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, being W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. However, in the present C.M.P. ground has been taken that petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(S). No.568 of 2018. In view of the aforesaid facts, the grounds taken by the petitioners is not acceptable to this Court. It seems that the petitioners have not approached this Court by way of the instant C.M.P. with clean hands, No justifiable ground is made for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such, the prayer made in the C.M.P. cannot be allowed and the order passed with the consent of both sides cannot be recalled/reviewed/modified. I do not find any merit in the instant C.M.P. and hence, it is dismissed.” 4. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.P.A. No.735 of 2018 and Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.P.A. No.747 of 2018 have jointly argued that the writ petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 but the matter was dismissed as withdrawn and as such, Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to modify the order dated 07.08.2018 to the extent that the similar order be passed as the order passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 otherwise the writ petitioners would greatly be prejudiced. It has further been contended that letters patent appeal since has been filed against the order passed by the another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and therefore, the writ petitioners had the intention to be a part of the letters patent appeal but since the present writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, the right to invoke the appellate jurisdiction has been extinguished and therefore, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners before the writ Court was intended to obtain the similar order as passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and not to withdraw the same. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that now the aforesaid letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.297 of 2018 has been disposed of and as such, by taking sympathetic view, the writ petition may be restored to its original file by recalling the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the JSSC have jointly submitted by raising the issue of maintainability of the present letters patent appeals on the ground that the order which has been impugned in these letters patent appeals cannot be construed to be the judgment in the eye of Law and since it is not a judgment, therefore, the instant letters patent appeals will not be maintainable. Further, it has been argued that once the learned counsel for the writ petitioners withdrew the writ petition, basis upon which the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, subsequent thereto, filing an application for recall of the aforesaid order by engaging another counsel cannot be said to be proper and once the Court has accepted the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners for withdrawal of the writ petition by passing an order in the “open Court”, such application for recall/modification/review of the aforesaid order cannot be said to be maintainable and taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge is correct in rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Petition by making an observation that the writ petitioners have not approached the writ Court with clean hands, therefore, the instant intracourt appeals are fit to be dismissed. 6. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. This Court before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 151 of CPC and before scrutinizing the same, it would be relevant to refer certain admitted facts of the case i.e., the writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of mandamus as would be evident from the prayer referred and quoted hereinabove. It is further admitted fact that on 07.08.2018, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, after making some argument has withdrawn the writ petition which has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as would be evident from the order dated 07.08.2018 quoted hereinabove, basis upon which, the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the writ petitioners have filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge which has been rejected as per the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in C.M.P. No.443 of 2018 as referred hereinabove. The learned Single Judge has observed while passing the order that the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, made a prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondents has not objected the same and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Such submission has been made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners on the pretext that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S). No.568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2018, the order for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 has been passed. No.568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2018, the order for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 has been passed. But in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the ground has been taken that the writ petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and hence, according to the learned Single Judge, the ground taken by the petitioners has found not to be acceptable rather the learned Single Judge has taken such ground of approaching in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition not with clean hands, no justifiable ground has been made for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 and further, the writ Court has observed that the learned counsel for the writ petitioners was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such, the prayer made in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has not found fit to be allowed and accordingly, the petition for recall/review/modification of the order dated 07.08.2018 has been rejected. 8. We, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciating the argument as also the material available on record, are of the view that following questions are required to be considered in these appeals:- (i) Whether any order can be passed in this writ petition purely on sympathy as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants? (ii) Whether the instant appeals are maintainable against the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC? Both the issues are interlinked with each other, therefore, the same are being discussed and answered jointly. 9. It is the settled position of law that no order can be passed on sympathy rather the order is required to be passed in accordance with Law. 10. Both the issues are interlinked with each other, therefore, the same are being discussed and answered jointly. 9. It is the settled position of law that no order can be passed on sympathy rather the order is required to be passed in accordance with Law. 10. In the given facts of this case, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners have insisted upon the Court that if the order passed by the writ Court will not be allowed, the writ petitioners will suffer irreparable loss but the question herein is that when the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, before the writ Court, by virtue of accepting Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the writ petitioners after making some argument, if makes submission for withdrawal of the writ petition which has not been objected by the learned counsel for the respondents and in that view of the matter, if the writ Court accepts such submissions of withdrawal by dismissing the writ petition and subsequently, petition is being filed for recall/review/modification of such order, it will not be proper for the Higher Court to recall such order merely because of some intention as has been pleaded in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to the effect that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners before the writ Court had intended for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the order passed by the writ Court passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018, cannot be acceptable rather when the Court is passing an order in the open Court in presence of the learned counsel for the parties by accepting their submissions, basis upon which, the writ petition has been disposed of, herein only on the basis of the intention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners who was appeared before the writ Court, the order can be reversed. The instant appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein, it has been provided as under Part-VII of Rule 10 thereof to the effect that appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court whereby and whereunder, an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Bench, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinabove provided an appeal shall lie to the said High court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, the relevant part of the said Rule is being referred hereinbelow:- “10. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.-And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinabove provided an appeal shall lie to the said High court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act………….” It is evident from the aforesaid Rule that the Letters Patent Appeal will lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court before the Division Court of the same High Court against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court, therefore, for maintaining the appeal, it would be necessary to consider as to whether the order which is under challenge before the Division Bench under intra-court appeal jurisdiction, is a judgment in the eye of Law or not? There is no dispute with respect to the definition of the judgment as because the judgment means a decision or legal action of the Court for adjudicating the rights of the parties. There is no dispute with respect to the definition of the judgment as because the judgment means a decision or legal action of the Court for adjudicating the rights of the parties. Herein, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 cannot be said to be a judgment in the eye of Law since on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners before the writ Court, the writ petition has been sought to be withdrawn and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and once the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be construed to be a judgment since no right has been adjudicated of the parties before the Court of Law and since it is not a judgment in the eye of Law, therefore, the instant letters patent appeals will not be maintainable. This argument can also not fit to be accepted as because, it has not been pleaded in the C.M.P. or no such certificate has been furnished by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners to the effect that statement of withdrawal of the writ petition has not been made and it has incorrectly been recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn and further, whatever has been observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that according to our considered view, it is the learned Single Judge before whom the statement for withdrawal of writ petition has been made in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents, as such, the learned Single Judge according to his subjective satisfaction about such contention has passed such order, therefore, it would not be proper for the Higher Court to interfere with such order. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have right to impress upon the Court that if the matter would not be adjudicated on merit, the writ petitioners will suffer irreparable loss but the question herein is that such consideration of such submission is not acceptable as because when the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners with all consciousness has made submission for withdrawal of the writ petition in the open Court knowing the fact fully that similar issue has already been decided in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and if in such circumstances, the writ petition has sought to be withdrawn, basis upon which, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, it cannot be recalled on showing mercy as it is settled position of Law that no order can be passed on sympathy. Order by a Court of Law is to be passed as per Law. 12. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter is of the view that the instant appeals are not fit to be entertained, accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed.