LAWS(PAT)-1997-7-34

COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. RAJIB RANJAN KUMAR

Decided On July 07, 1997
COAL INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Rajib Ranjan Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has come before us for hearing after (sic)emand by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4705 of 1991.

(2.) In the original writ application being CWJC No. 415 of 1989(R), the espondent writ petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 22.12.1988 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was informed that the selection committee had not recommended him for appointment. The said writ application was allowed by learned single Judge of his Court and the learned Single Judge gave certain direction while disposing of the writ application. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed this (sic)etters patent appeal which was heard and finally disposed of by a Division 3ench of this Court on 9th May, 1991. By the said judgment, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was modified so far as the relief was concerned, inasmuch as the appellant was directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of junior executive trainee. The present appellant then moved the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4705 of 1991 against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench passed in the instant appeal. The Supreme Court finally heard the appeal on 22.11.1991 and allowed the same. The Division Bench judgment of this Court was set aside with the direction to his Court to restore the letters patent appeal and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. It appears that before the Supreme Court, certain documents and materials were produced and the Supreme Court observed that these documents are necessary to come to a proper conclusion. However, the supreme Court directed this Court to examine the records in the light of the contentions made by the parties. Hence, this letters patent appeal has been heard afresh in the light of the direction and the order of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The short facts of the case are as follows: