Civil Writ Petition No.11474 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1 of 1992 in Civil Writ Petition No.11474 of 1990 Date of Decision:26.04.2011 Manoj Kumar ....petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is an application for recalling of order dated 15.03.1991, whereby the present writ petition was dismissed. In the present writ petition, challenge has been laid by the petitioner to an order of termination of his service(Annexure P-4) which was endorsed to him vide endorsement dated 19.06.1990. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.8872 of 1990 which was disposed of by passing the following order on 25th May, 1990: Present: Mr.H.P.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner The petitioner is seeking regularization of his services in view of Piara Singh's case(1998(4) SLR 739 without making any representation. He may make Civil Writ Petition No.11474 of 1990 2 a representation to the Authority who will pass appropriate orders on the same within six months thereof. Status quo regarding service to continue from the date of receipt of the representation. This writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.” Noticing the aforesaid facts, this Court had dismissed this petition vide judgment dated 15.03.1991 which reads thus: Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Sood, AAG for the State ... Fresh writ petition would be barred by res-judicata in view of the earlier order of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No.8872 of 1990 filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any vacancy has arisen since the passing of the aforesaid order or he has been denied opportunity to compete with others for regular selection. Dismissed.” The instant application was filed by the petitioner on 24th July, 1992 for recalling of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts which have come on the record, I find no merit in this application. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.04.2011 neenu