AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order No. CDPO/G/2018-19/558-62 dated 30.05.2018, whereby
respondent No. 8 has been appointed against the post against which the petitioner had been continued to work. It is stated that petitioner had earlier
approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 665/2006, in which this Court directed the petitioner to continue. It is submitted that despite
the fact that there was a direction passed for continuation, respondents issued an order of engagement of respondent No. 8, which constrained her to
once again knock the doors of this Court by filing SWP No. 832/2007. It is submitted that this Court showed indulgence in the aforesaid petition and
vide order dated 05.05.2007 kept the operation of the order impugned in the aforesaid writ petition in abeyance and permitted the petitioner to continue
on the post.Â
It is now the grievance of the petitioner that SWP No. 832/2007 has been dismissed for non-prosecution and other petition too has not been
pursued.Â
With the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition for non-prosecution, respondent No. 7 has now issued the order of engagement of respondent No.
It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already filed an application for restoration in which the respondents have
been duly served but the same has not come up for considration.Â
Be that as it may, the fact remains that subject matter of this writ petition is the same as was subject matter in SWP No. 832/2007. The aforesaid
writ petition, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been dismissed. Restoration application is stated to be pending but the same has
not been disposed of so far.Â
That being so, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file another petition to get an interim order, which was passed in the writ petition which now
stand dismissed for non-prosecution. When confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would like
to withdraw this petition with the liberty to file representation before the respondents and that the respondents be directed to consider the same in a
time bound manner.Â
Keeping in view the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition, which otherwise is not maintainable, is dismissed as withdrawn
leaving it open to the petitioner to file representation before the respondents.Â
Needless to say that in case the petitioner files representation before the respondents, an informed decision thereon shall be taken by the
respondents within a reasonable time.Â
At request, copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner under the seal and signature of the Bench Secretary of this Court.