1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 596 of 1997 LAXMI NARAYAN V/S STATE & ORS Mr. G.R.Punia, for the appellant. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. Date of Order : 28.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant, by this appeal, seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.97, dismissing the writ petition, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has no case of merits and there is no question of his pursuing alternative remedy. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union Vs. Delhi Administration (1992) 4 SCC 99. The petition was filed inter alia alleging that the respondents invited the applications from the qualified candidates in Spray Painting for the post of Spray Painter, in response whereto, the petitioner applied for and selected and was appointed on 7.12.85. However, to show 2. the interrupted presence of the petitioner, artificial breaks were given in the duty by the respondents. It is then alleged that the petitioner was promoted on the post of skilled technician in Spray Painting by order dated 4.11.88 and he is continuing on the same post. Inter alia, with these averments, it was prayed that the petitioner should be regularized. This writ petition was dismissed as above. On 24.1.2008, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that the appellant is not in job right since 2002, as such, there is no question of any regularization. This submission was controverted by learned counsel Mr. Punia by submitting that the appellant is still continuing in service, though with artificial breaks. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted time to take instructions, therefore, the matter was adjourned for today. Today, Mr. Punia submits that he could not receive any positive concrete instructions from the appellant. In our view, obviously, the submission made by the respondent remains un-controverted. The obvious result is that if the appellant is not in job right since 2002, there is no question of any regularization, and if the petitioner appellant may have challenge the termination in appropriate proceedings and in appropriate manner before the appropriate authority and if that challenge succeeds, 3. obviously, the appellant may have his remedies. However, as the things stand, the appellant cannot be said to be entitled for any relief. The special appeal, having no force, is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. ms rathore