- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
(2.) The petitioner was claiming employment on the strength of parity that was being extended to the personnel of Armed Forces and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Anr., 2003 4 SCC 524, and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Yasin Ansari,2006 3 UPLBEC 2508, to contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained. He further submits that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the employment as per the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 14.7.2009. It is further submitted by Sri Singh that even assuming that the Notification dated 10.9.2002 does not come to the aid of the petitioner, yet he is entitled for being given employment against a non-combatant post.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.R. Khan for the Union of India, it is evident that the earlier claim of the petitioner confirmed his 50% disability and the Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on that count. An observation was, however, made that in case the petitioner is entitled to any benefit under the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Yasin Ansari (supra), then his claim may be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the Army order dated 15.3.2000.;