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.