1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.960/08 Dharmendra Singh V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. 21.7.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.Mukesh Agrawal for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant both in limitation application and also in appeal. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ application no.471/1999 dismissing the writ application. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The writ petitioner initially was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk by the State Soldiers' Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur by order dated 18.5.1991. He continued to serve till 2nd April, 1992. Thereafter, his services were terminated as he was temporarily appointed. The termination order was challenged before this Court in writ application no.3205/92. That writ application was heard alongwith similarly situated writ applications and were disposed of by this Court by order dated 8th February 1993. While disposing of writ application of this appellant and others, this Court set aside the order of termination, observing that as soon as the regularly selected candidates join the services of the Board, the right of the petitioner and others to continue in service shall 2 come to an end. It was further observed that for that purpose, the Board shall follow the principle of last come first go. After passing of the order by this Court, some of the persons were freshly appointed on regular basis and after their joining under Soldiers' Board, the writ petitioner and others were again formally terminated in 1996. That very order, however, was again challenged before this Court giving rise to the impugned order. The claim of the petitioner was earlier examined by this Court and no relief was granted as to continuance in service rather held that as soon as the regularly selected candidates would join, the services of writ petitioner and others shall become co-terminus. As a result of which, the petitioner and others were terminated. The learned Single Judge of this Court in second round of writ application however keeping in view the earlier judgment rendered in the case of petitioner and others, dismissed the writ application. Learned counsel for the appellant in no manner could demonstrate before this Court as to the validity of appointment of writ petitioner nor any document was produced before us to show that his appointment was regular and he could not have been terminated. Moreso, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court referred to above, the matter could not have been raked up. No material has been produced before us to show that in view of the observations of this Court, his case has been discriminated and other persons similarly situated 3 have been retained in service. In view of the observations made by this Court in earlier writ application, the merit of the case was not expected to be examined again and again. Once it was examined and no substantial relief was granted to the writ petitioner-appellant, in our view, learned Single Judge of this Court was wholly justified in dismissing the writ application. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar