AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
To question correctness of order dated 9.12.2016 this appeal
is preferred.
The appellant while working with RHSDP was terminated
from service on 31.11.2011 on closure of the project. Being
aggrieved by the same, he preferred a petition for writ (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.8374/2011) that came to be decided under an
order dated 07.5.2012 with a direction to the respondents to
consider case of the petitioner for re-employment, if services of
Site Supervisor is required in future.
After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the respondents but of no consequence. He also
filed a contempt petition alleging deliberate and wilful non-
compliance of the directions given under the order dated
07.5.2012. The contempt petition was dismissed by learned
Single Bench by arriving at the conclusion that there was no
wilful disobedience. After dismissal of contempt petition, a
petition for writ was filed with submission that the project in which
the appellant-petitioner was working was in currency and
appointment was denied to the petitioner deliberately with a view
to deprive him the relief granted by this Court.
The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on the
count that in the earlier writ petition no direction was given to the
respondents to employ the petitioner as Site Supervisor/
Supervision Consultant irrespective of the requirement of any
person on the post aforesaid.
In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel is
that the respondents are employing other persons on different
posts but they are not considering case of the appellant.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced in view
of the fact that the appellant was discontinued from service in the
year 2011 and that termination was subject matter of a petition
for writ. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to
consider case of appellant-petitioner if there is any need of Site
Supervisor. There is nothing on record to establish about such
requirement. In view of it, no interference with the order
impugned is desirable.