JUDGMENT
Shethna, J.
1. On 5.11.82, the appellant/original petitioner was appointed on the post of Diesel Mechanic Instructor for a period of three months or till the regular selected candidate was available. His services were extended for a further period of one month by an order dated 10.2.83. Once again his services were extended upto 31.3.83. On 31.3.83, his services were terminated.
2. He was once again appointed on the aforesaid post on 19.10.1984 for a period of 89 days or till the regular selected candidate was available. His services were extended for a further period of one month by an order dated 22.1.85.
3. He was once again appointed on the aforesaid post by an order dated 17.10.86 but this time for a period of six months on temporary basis. Thereafter, his services were terminated by an order dated 8.4.87 with effect from 24.4.87. By an order dated 1.5.87, he was once again appointed on the aforesaid post upto 31.7.87 and his services were terminated by an order dated 31.7.87.
4. Once again he was appointed vide order dated 17.7.89 but this time on a different post of Pump Repairing Institute for a period of three months or till the regularly selected candidate was made available. The same was extended for a period of three months or till the end of current session by an order dated 18.10.89 which was further extended upto 21.1.90. However, his services were terminated on 12.1.90 and thereafter once again, he was appointed on the aforesaid post by order dated 22.1.90 which was later on terminated by an order dated 20.4.90 with effect from 21.4.90. He was once again appointed on the aforesaid post by an order dated 23.4.90 upto 31.5.90 or till regular selected candidates are made available. His services were terminated by an order dated 30.5.90 with effect from 31.5.90.
5. He was once again appointed by an order dated 27.7.92 but this time on the post of Pump Operator Instructor for a period of four months. His services were again terminated by an order dated 19.8.92.
6. Thereafter, he was once again appointed by an order dated 24.8.92 on the post of Junior Inspector Diesel Mechanic for a period of four months.
7. At that point of time, the petitioner earlier filed writ petition No. 5375/92 before this Court wherein notices were ordered to be issued on 5.11.92 and by way of ad-interim order, the respondents were directed not to terminate his services. However, by an order dated 15.3.93, his services were terminated. After a period of nearly four years of termination, the petitioner sought permission from the learned Single Judge of this court to withdraw that writ petition with a liberty to file fresh petition. The said permission was granted on 25.1.97. Accordingly, the petitioner filed fresh writ petition No. 1318/97 on 20.3.97 through his counsel Mr. Mahendra Trivedi.
8. On 4.1.99, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed Mr. P.K. Lohra to accept notice for the respondents and after taking suitable instructions file reply. Accordingly, detailed reply affidavit was filed by the respondents. On 20.3.2001, another learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in view of the reply filed by the respondents wherein it was pointed out that the order was properly made.
9. Having gone through the reply filed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no reason to interfere with such order of termination and the petitioner has no right for regularation. This order is challenged in the special appeal by the appellant.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant was not a speaking order, therefore, this Court may remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge more particularly, when writ petition No. 3755/90 filed by his junior Pradeep Kumar was accepted by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.7.97.
11. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that another learned Single Judge of this Court has accepted writ petition filed by Pradeep Kumar, junior to the applicant, then also, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is not required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for this purpose because the services of Pradeep Kumar were never terminated whereas the services of the appellant were terminated on 15.3.93 during the pendency of his earlier writ petition No. 5375/92.
12. It is true that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant has not dealt with the reply filed by the respondents in detail, therefore, we have carefully considered the reply affidavit filed by the respondents to me writ petition. From the reply affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was asked to appear for screening test on 12.11.92 but inspite of that intimation received by him, he did not appear in the screening test, therefore, his services were terminated. In our considered opinion, this was a material fact which was required to be disclosed by the appellant in his subsequent writ petitions. Non-disclosure of such a material and important fact would be sufficient for the Court to dismiss the writ petition. That apart, when the petitioner has not appeared in Screening Test and if his service were terminated, then no fault can be found with such termination order.
13. However, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Mehta that his junior Pradeep Kumar had also not appeared in the screening test still his services were ordered to be regularised by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 3755/90, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the respondents to terminate the services of the appellant more particularly when there was an interim order against his termination passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in his earlier writ petition No. 5375/92.
14. We failed to appreciate this argument advanced by Mr. Mehta. Admittedly, the services of Pradeep Kumar were not terminated during the pendency of the writ petition filed by him and if the learned Single Judge of this Court thought it fit to order regularisation of his services, that does not mean that the services of [he appellant should also be regularised because his services were already terminated way back in 1993, that too during the pendency of his earlier writ petition wherein according to the petitioner, there was an interim order in his favour. Inspite of the interim orders of this Court, if his services were terminated, then he had another remedy to file contempt petition which he did file but the same was dismissed on the ground that interim order was passed regarding different post whereas the petitioner was working on another post.
15. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has placed before us the photostat copy of the order dated 20.8.97 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by Pradeep Kumar. From the said judgment, it nowhere appears that Pradeep Kumar was also required to appear in the screening test and he did not appear in the screening test and inspite of that, the learned Single Judge allowed his writ petition. If these facts were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed, that does not mean that the petition filed by the petitioner should also be allowed, when it was specifically pointed out that he failed to appear in the screening test,
16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance or merits in this special fail. According it fails and is dismissed.