CW 13146/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13146/09 Mustakim Mohammed Versus Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 28/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. P.S. Sharma, for petitioner *** Petitioner, who is working as Teacher Gr.III, was transferred under the order of District Education Officer, Elementary Education vide order dt.30th September, 2004, which was challenged by filing appeal before Tribunal and appears that because of interim stay, he was allowed to continue and the order impugned dt.3rd December, 2004 was never given effect to. However, appeal was dismissed on account of non- prosecution on 5th February, 2007. Application was filed on behalf of petitioner for restoration of appeal after 2½ years on 10th September, 2009. Learned Tribunal, however, observed that U/r.25 of the Rules, 1976, period of limitation is 30 days, no satisfactory explanation came from the petitioner which may justify the inordinate delay CW 13146/09 [2] in filing of application for restoration. Taking note thereof, application for restoration was rejected vide order dt.17th September, 2009. Counsel for petitioner submits that appeal which was dismissed in non-prosecution on 5th February, 2007 his lawyer never informed the petitioner and even after his appeal being dismissed on account of non-prosecution, he was allowed to continue and immediately when this fact came to his notice, he approached Tribunal by filing application for recalling and restoration of appeal on 10th September, 2009. Counsel further submits that there may be some administrative reason or exigency of service while passing of order dt.30th September, 2004 but after passing of more than 5 yrs. in change circumstances, the respondents may be permitted to pass afresh order, if required, in the interest of administration. Petitioner under the interim order of the Tribunal, atleast was allowed to continue for almost 5 yrs. and even for the delay of 2½ yrs., CW 13146/09 [3] certainly no satisfactory explanation came forward and what has been urged by Counsel for petitioner that his lawyer has not informed to him that is without foundation and vague, which cannot be considered and countenanced by this Court for the reason that lawyer once engaged, appears before Tribunal as & when matters are listed and if at all he has not informed for the reason as alleged by the petitioner, it was his duty as well to remain in touch with the Counsel to know the proceedings which are taken place in the appeal preferred by him. This court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. However, the respondents will be at liberty, if considered appropriate, may invoke the order dt.30th September, 2004 or may pass fresh order, if required, in the interest of administration or in exigency of service. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA13146CW09 28-10.doc