Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Yunus & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 February, 2010
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
Court No. - 26 Civil Misc. Review/Recall Appln. no.59935 of 2009 in Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33294 of 1995 Petitioner :- Mohd. Yunus & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.M.L. Srivastava,R.K. Gupta,S.M.A.Kazmi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Sri M.M. Lal Srivastva as well as Tahira Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This is an application for recall/review of the final judgment dated 23.4.2002. Admittedly, this application has been filed for recall of the said order on 2.3.2009. The explanation given in the application and the affidavit is that the petitioners were not aware regarding the order of the dismissal of the writ petition which was passed in 2002. It was only on the basis of the order by which the petitioners, who were working on the post of Assistant Teacher, Urdu in different institutions on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court, an order has been passed terminating their services. This order has been passed on the basis of letter sent by Standing Counsel dated 16.2.2009. The petitioners submit that they were not having any knowledge of the order of dismissal of the writ petition dated 23.4.2002, which was passed on merit after hearing both the parties.
I have gone through the record and the judgment passed by this Court. From the perusal of the judgment dated 23.4.2002, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared before the Court and argued the matter on merit. After noting the contention of the parties, a finding to this effect has been recorded that the date of interview was fixed as 22.9.1995 but the interview was taken on 23.9.1995 and the candidates were not informed with respect to the adjournment of the date of interview. Further the Selection Committee has also failed to prepare the list of candidates appearing for the interview.On the basis of complaint, the District Magistrate enquired into the matter and found that the selection itself was not proper and therefore, for order dated 5.10.1995 restricted the appointment as well as the joining of the selected candidates. The writ petition was dismissed on merit on 23.4.2002. Therefore, in my opinion, if a person like the petitioners whose selection has been cancelled and by virtue of the interim order of this Court, if they were working and they were so negligent that they have not taken care to know the whereabouts of the fate of the case, knowing this fact that counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged, about 7 years after the petitioner's contention that they were not aware regarding the dismissal of the writ petiton, is not believable by the Court. Admittedly, the application is being filed after a lapse of 7 years when the authorities below have passed an order terminating the services of the petitoner. If a litigant who is benefited only on the basis of the interim order of this Court, is so negligent that he has not taken care of his case after a lapse of 7 years, in my opinion, is not entitled for any sympathy or benefit from the Court. Once the order has been passed on merit after hearing both the parties, in my opinion, this cannot be a case for recall of the final judgment dated 23.4.2002.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the present application.
The application is hereby dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 V.Sri/-