IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11250 of 2006 MD.RASID Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 10.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner approached this High Court by C.W.J.C. No. 8126 of 1988. This writ application was filed challenging the termination of the petitioner without compliance of the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court in the order dated 06.08.1990 annexed in Annexure – 2, categorically recorded that it was not possible for the court to decide the issue while exercising power under writ jurisdiction, but the court taking compassionate view held that in case regular appointments are made, then his case would also be considered and the question of relaxation in age could be granted. Petitioner is back again in the present writ application seeking a direction or mandamus upon the respondents to appoint him in this regard. He has brought evidence contained in Annexure – 4 dated 21st March, 1987, that some people had been appointed and he pleads discrimination. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a categorical stand that no appointment has been - 2 - made under the Bank after the passing of the order in the earlier writ application. In so far as Annexure 4 is concerned, the same relates to matters much beyond the passing of the order contained in Annexure – 2. With the given position to the dispute no direction or mandamus can be passed for appointment of the petitioner by ignoring the earlier observation made by the Court way back on 6.8.1990. The writ application is misplaced and it is dismissed, accordingly. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)