WP(C) 6394/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Ms. S Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D Das, lea rned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner, namely, Ajit Kr. Das, was appointed as ’Farash’ in the regular s cale of pay, on 07-09-1990, in the office of the Director, Census operation, Ass am, which falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Pursuan t to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined his place of posting at G uwahati. By order, dated 21-12-1993, petitioner’s service was terminated, along with 19 others, on the ground that Census operation having been completed, there was no requirement of the services of the petitioner and the said 19 persons. T he petitioner and the said 19 other persons challenged the order of termination, by filing OA No. 269/1993, in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Ben ch. By order, dated 05-06-1998, the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the challe nge posed by the 19 applicants against termination of their respective services, allowed the petitioner’s challenge holding him (the petitioner) to have been re gularly appointed and directed accordingly reinstatement of the petitioner with full monitory benefit. Aggrieved by the direction, so issued by the learned Tribunal, the Union of Indi a filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 664/98. By judgment and or der, dated 22-09-1999, the said writ petition was allowed and the order, dated 0 5-06-1998, passed by the learned Tribunal was set aside. While so quashing the f indings of the learned Tribunal, the High Court, however, directed the responden ts to consider the case of the present petitioner along with similarly situated persons. As the petitioner did not come to be appointed, even after the judgment and order, dated 22-09-1999, stood passed by the High Court, the petitioner, on ce again, invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Central Administrative Tribuna l by making OA No. 172/2000. In this original application, the respondents conte nded, inter alia, that the petitioner had not furnished the required certificate in order to prove his date of birth. This contention of the respondents was fou nd untenable by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, by order, dated 10-04-2001, the learned Tribunal, while allowing the OA No. 172/2000, directed the responden ts to regularize the petitioner’s service with utmost dispatch making it clear t hat the respondents shall not insist upon the petitioner to produce the certific ated, dated 19-09-1999, in original, issued by the headmaster of the school, whe re the petitioner claimed to have been educated. The relevant observations made and the directions given by the learned Tribunal, which appear at Para-4 of the said order, read as under: Taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, I direct the responden ts to consider the case of the applicant for regularization with utmost dispatch as per the order of the Tribunal merged in the order of the Division Bench of H igh Court on the basis of the certificate dated 19-09-1991 issued by the Head Ma ster without insisting any more. It is expected that the respondents shall take the matter with all seriousness and complete the exercise as expeditiously as po ssible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt the order. Aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Tribunal for regularization of the petitioner’s service, the respondents challenged the same by way of a writ p etition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 7949/2001. By judgment and order, dated 02 -02-2006, the learned Tribunal’s order was upheld and the respondents were direc ted to consider the petitioner’s case for absorption in the light of the directi on issued by the learned Tribunal as well as the Court. The relevant observation s appearing in the order, dated 02-02-2006, read as under: We do not find any justification on the part of the petitioners to insist the a pplicant to produce the certificate from the Employment Exchange and more partic ularly, when this Court already directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent/applicant without insisting for sponsorship by the Employment Ex change. The Tribunal had taken the over all facts and circumstances into conside ration and passed a just and equitable order with which we are not inclined to i nterfere in exercise of powers under certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petitione rs are accordingly directed to consider the case of the respondent/applicant for absorption in service in the light of the directions issued by the Tribunal as well as the Court. Thereafter, an order has been passed on 18-05-2006, by the respondents stating t o the effect that as there was no regular vacancy in the post of ’Farash’, inequ ivalent post in the Directorate of Census Operation, Assam, the petitioner could not be appointed or making it clear that as and when a vacancy arises in the po st of ’Farash’ or in any equivalent post in the Directorate of Census, Assam, th e petitioner’s case would be considered for appointment subject to the fulfillme nt of eligibility conditions. It is, now, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, has learn t that there are as many as three vacant posts lying with the Directorate of Cen sus Operation, Assam, which are equivalent to the post of ’Farash’ and the petit ioner’s case shall be considered against the said vacancies and that the petitio ner has already made, in this regard, a representation, on 25-05-2010, to the re spondents and this writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the responde nts to examine the petitioner’s said representation and do the needful in accord ance with law. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been running from pillar to posts f or the last 17 years, the respondents shall consider the petitioner’s case with utmost dispatch as has been directed by the learned Tribunal and do the needful in accordance with law. If the vacancies are lying as contended by the petitione r, the respondents shall consider the petitioner’s case for appointment and do t he needful, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the dat e of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent No. 2, namely, Director o f Census Operation, Assam. The petitioner may furnish to the respondent No. 2 a certified copy of this orde r along with copy of the writ petition and annexures thereto and also a copy of the said representation, dated 25-05-2010. This writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the above observations an d directions. No order as to costs.