MUSUD ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dubey. counsel for the appellants, in detail.

(2.) THE learned single Judge refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the undue delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. It is seen that the petitioners who are untrained and who were appointed in the year 1983, were terminated in the year 1985. There was a direction by the Supreme Court in an appeal from a judgment of the Patna High Court regarding the line of action to be adopted in respect of persons aggrieved like the writ petitioners. That course was apparently adopted and an advertisement was issued in the year 1994 and the process for implementation of the direction of the Supreme Court was taken -up. It is the case of the petitioners that the direction of the Patna High Court In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court has not been complied with.

(3.) SINCE we are of the view that, no case for our interference with the refusal of the learned single Judge to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction is made out. we dismiss the appeal.