- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the present Appellant has been dismissed on the ground of material concealment and suppression of the factum of filing Writ Petition No. 15905 of 2003 wherein the relief for regularisation was not granted by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed. The learned single Judge had further imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/ -
(2.) WE have heard Sri Lallan Prasad Pal, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned standing counsel, who represents the Respondents and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd March 2011 giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it as the supplementary affidavit filed today. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in Writ Petition No. 15905 of 2003 wherein the Appellant had sought regularisation of his service, the relief was claimed on the basis of seniority whereas in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, the relief was not claimed on the basis of seniority but on account of the fact that he is working as reflected by the Respondents' documents. The fact remains that while seeking regularisation in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, the Appellant deliberately did not mention the factum of filing of the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 15905 of 2003 and its dismissal as also the dismissal in special appeal.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition.;