WP (C) 414 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.414/2010 % Date of Decision: 08.02.2010 Rajinder Singh …. Petitioner Through Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, Advocate. Versus Ministry of Railways & Ors …. Respondents Through Nemo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * CM No.1735/2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM No.1734/2010 This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside the order dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel. WP (C) 414 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 Notice of the writ petition had not been issued to the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he was unwell and on account of his indisposition and he could not appear on 21st January, 2010 and the writ petition was dismissed, in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 21st January, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P(C) No.414/2010 The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th September, 2009 in O.A No.1840/2009 dismissing his original application seeking appointment since 1993 to the Class III post. The petitioner had earlier filed an O.A No.1095/1993 which was disposed of on 29th July, 1999. While disposing of the petitioner’s original application No.1095/1993 on 29th July, 1999 the respondents were directed to appoint applicant at his turn in accordance with the list on occurrence of an appropriate vacancy for his appointment. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby respondents were directed to appoint him whenever a vacancy WP (C) 414 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 may arise on the ground that he is not entitled for appointment when the vacancy may arise but he is entitled for appointment either from 1988 or 1993 as is claimed by the petitioner later on. Consequently, the directions of the Tribunal in O.A No.1095/1993 which was decided on 29th July, 1999 became final. The petitioner pursuant to the order dated 29th July, 1999 was appointed in 2000. After accepting the appointment in compliance with the order dated 29th July, 1999 in O.A No.1095/1993, almost after nine years petitioner had challenged his appointment from 2000 and had contended that he was entitled for appointment either from 1988 or from 1993. The Tribunal has held that the pleas of the petitioner that he is entitled for appointment from 1988 or 1993 and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy should have been made by the petitioner in the first O.A filed by him. The petitioner has also not given any plausible reason for approaching the Tribunal after nine years after his appointment in 2000 and consequently dismissing the petition seeking appointment from 1988 or 1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to give any cogent reason or ground as to how the petitioner can raise the plea now for WP (C) 414 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 appointment from 1988 or 1993 after the decision dated 29th July, 1999 which was not challenged by the petitioner. No cogent ground has also been disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for approaching the Tribunal nine years after his appointment in 2000. If the petitioner was appointed in 2000 and he was not appointed from 1988 or 1993, the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal within the reasonable time. There is no explanation either pleaded or given by the petitioner for the delay. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dated 7th September, 2009 in O.A No.1840/2000 titled Rajinder Singh v. Ministry of Railway through Secretary, Railway Board and Ors dismissing his application seeking appointment from 1988 or 1993 which will require interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. February 8, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’