AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
On 26th October, 1992 the services of the Petitioner were put to an end in exercise of power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner went before the Tribunal and lost. Petitioner then once again approached the Tribunal by filing a review application and lost. The Petitioner thereupon came to this Court in 2001 by filing the present writ petition. In the present writ petition for the first time, it was contended by the Petitioner that provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 does not apply to the Petitioner since Petitioner was not holding a temporary service within the meaning of the provisions contained in the said Rules. This is a question of fact which having not been raised before the Tribunal could not be permitted to be raised for the first time in the present writ petition, and that too after nine years from the date of issuance of impugned order. We accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.