MAINAK DUTTA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 8528 of 2013

(2.) BY way of instant interlocutory application, petitioner has sought to incorporate the proposed amendments in the writ petition stating that by way of counter affidavit filed in the instant case it has come to his notice that the respondents have now proposed to scrap the panel for the post of Director(Technical), C.C.L. it is submitted that petitioner has made a prayer in the main writ application for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure -18) inviting application for the post of Director(Technical), C.C.L. which is in teeth of the judgments passed in the petitioner's case in W.P.S. No. 5099 of 2009 and W.P.S. No. 283 of 2010 dated 22.2.2012, which was also affirmed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2012.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the vigilance clearance was denied, on account of earlier departmental proceeding. The said denial of vigilance clearance cannot be made basis for refusal to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment from the same panel as per the directions issued in the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner earlier.