Court No. - 9 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9001 of 1993 Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- V.K.Misra,A.Chandra,Amit Dwivedi,G.C Sinha Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner no.1.
This is an application for restoration of the writ petition dismissed on
03.12.2004 so far as it relates to the petitioner no.1.
The submission of the counsel for the applicant/petitioner no.1 is that the
petitioner no.1 alongwith three others have jointly filed the present petition.
This Court passed an interim order on 16.11.1993 directing the opposite
parties to permit the petitioners to work on the post they were working.
The counsel for the petitioners has been elevated to Bench of this Court and
no information was sent to the petitioners for engaging another counsel. In the
meantime, the petitioner no.3 without informing the other petitioners engaged
another counsel and who pursued the matter only on his behalf. The writ
petition was heard and by means of judgment and order dated 03.12.2004 the
writ petition was allowed with respect to the petitioner no.3 with a direction to
the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner no.3 on the post
of Copyist from the date he was eligible for regularisation in view of the
Regularisation Rules, 1998 and the writ petition with respect to the other
petitioners was dismissed.
The further submission of the counsel for the applicant/petitioner no.1 is that
it was a joint petition and all the petitioners were similarly situated and there
was no occasion to dismiss the petition on behalf of rest of the petitioners
while allowing the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no.3. Admittedly,
no information was sent about elevation of the counsel for the petitioners and
for engaging another counsel and the arguments were placed only on behalf of
the petitioner no.3, therefore, the order dated 03.12.2004 deserves to be
recalled and the writ petition is liable to be restored to its original number for
hearing so that other petitioners may be able to place their version before this
Court.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the applicant/petitioner
no.1.
The writ petition has been allowed only on behalf of the petitioner no.3,
therefore, before passing any order on the application, it is expedient in the
interest of justice, to issue notice to the rest of the petitioners.
Accordingly, office is directed to issue notice to the petitioner nos. 2 to 4
returnable at an early date.
The counsel for the petitioner no.1 will take steps within a week.
List in the first week of April, 2010.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
Suresh/-