1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.833/2007 Mahaveer Prasad Vs. The District Establishment Committee & Anr. Date of Order :: 09-07-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order impugned. By the order impugned, the second writ application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant challenging order of termination dated 15.9.1995 was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the first inning, the writ application was dismissed with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal and during pendency of the appeal, this writ was filed in view of the communication made by the authorities as contained Annexure-6 dated 25.5.2000. The learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the earlier order of this Court directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy, dismissed the writ application again as the appeal filed by the petitioner was substantially pending. From the earlier order passed by this Court dated 2.7.1997, it would appear that the writ petitioner was directed to raise his grievances before the appellate forum and in case adverse order 2 is passed by the appellate forum, he may approach this Court afresh. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was not disposed of on the day the writ application was filed. Secondly, learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ application on the ground of delay and latches as the same was filed in 2007 after inordinate delay. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in this background, in our view, cannot be faulted. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that the domicile certificate which was said to be forged, subsequently was found not forged and necessary directions were given by the authorities. There is nothing on record to show that as on whose behest, the matter was examined departmentally and the aforesaid document was again found to be genuine one. Be that as it may, in view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, in our view, no interference would be required and if so advised, the petitioner may move departmentally for redressal of his grievances. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. [RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen