JIWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Rural Development & Panchayats, State of Punjab on 8.4.1980. Thereafter, he was appointed as Child Development Project Officer in the Department of Social Security, Woman & Child Development, Punjab on 6.1.1999 by way of direct recruitment. Vide order dated 14.9.2001 the petitioner was taken on deputation in the Department of Rural Development & Panchayats on the post of Block Development & Panchayat Officer against a post meant for direct recruitment for a period of one year subject to further extension from time to time. Finally in the light of order dated 16.4.2007 he was ordered to be repatriated back to his parent department. Petitioner preferred CWP No. 6346 of 2007 impugning the order of repatriation dated 16.4.2007 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 25.8.2008 by directing the respondent -authorities to decide his legal notice dated 14.2.2008. In deference to the order passed by this Court, the State passed an order dated 27.11.2008, whereby the legal notice preferred by the petitioner against his order of repatriation was filed and such order of repatriation to his parent department was upheld. The present writ petition has been filed impugning memo dated 15.5.2013 at Annexure P -9, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner to forward a Memorial Petition preferred by him to His Excellency the Governor of Punjab against his order of repatriation, has been rejected.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I find that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived.

(3.) THE order of repatriation of the petitioner dated 16.4.2007 back to his parent department having already been upheld by this Court, the present writ petition can only be termed as a devise to reopen the issue in a surreptitious manner by submitting a Memorial Petition and now seeking directions for such Memorial Petition to be adjudicated on merits. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner is guilty of abuse of the process of Court and has filed a frivolous petition.