RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside the order dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel. Notice of the writ petition had not been issued to the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he was unwell and on account of his indisposition and he could not appear on 21st January, 2010 and the writ petition was dismissed, in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P(C) No.414/2010

(2.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th September, 2009 in O.A No.1840/2009 dismissing his original application seeking appointment since 1993 to the Class III post. The petitioner had earlier filed an O.A No.1095/1993 which was disposed of on 29th July, 1999. While disposing of the petitioner's original application No.1095/1993 on 29th July, 1999 the respondents were directed to appoint applicant at his turn in accordance with the list on occurrence of an appropriate vacancy for his appointment. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby respondents were directed to appoint him whenever a vacancy may arise on the ground that he is not entitled for appointment when the vacancy may arise but he is entitled for appointment either from 1988 or 1993 as is claimed by the petitioner later on. Consequently, the directions of the Tribunal in O.A No.1095/1993 which was decided on 29th July, 1999 became final. The petitioner pursuant to the order dated 29th July, 1999 was appointed in 2000.

(3.) After accepting the appointment in compliance with the order dated 29th July, 1999 in O.A No.1095/1993, almost after nine years petitioner had challenged his appointment from 2000 and had contended that he was entitled for appointment either from 1988 or from 1993.