- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as 'Mali' in Veer Bahadur Singh Sports College, Gorakhpur with effect from 12.10.1989. Although the copy of the appointment letter has not been filed but it appears from the pleadings that his appointment was purely temporary in nature. He further alleges that all the employees of the college were told by the Principal orally that the college shall be closed for ever with effect from 15.5.1992 and thus they need not come to perform their duties. Certain employees along with the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20301 of 1992 (Km. Anshu Kapoor & others v. State of U.P. & others) in which a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it was stated as under: 13. That the contents of paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition are emphatically denied and in reply thereto it is stated that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out any case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court. There is absolutely no termination order against any of the petitioner. The employment of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 is governed by their respective contracts. The respondent Nos. 5 to 18 being casual daily workers have not at all been terminated or stopped from performing their work in the college. They are still at liberty to come to the college and perform their work and duties as usual like the remaining workers who have not joined hands with the petitioner. There is absolutely no cause of action for filing the above noted writ petition. The above noted writ petition is based upon baseless, frivolous and vexatious grounds. As such, it is liable to be dismissed straightway with costs to the answering respondents. The petitioners have hopelessly failed to satisfy the requisite ingredients for issuance of writ of MANDAMUS or not at all entitled for any relief from this Hon'ble Court. Since the performance of work and duty of the petitioners have not all been discontinued or terminated, there is no justification for praying for continuance of their service by order of this Hon'ble Court, so far as the grant of respective pay scales are concerned, the petitioners have never represented or approached the competent authorities in that behalf. It is still open for the petitioners to do the same, which may be considered in accordance with law by them. But in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Writ of Mandamus may not be issued by this Hon'ble Court.
(2.) The writ petition was dismissed on 10.1.1995. An application dated 9.2.1995 was filed for recall of the order which was also dismissed on 10.3.1995 by passing the following order: Petitioner has moved an application dated 9.2.95 for recalling order of this Court dated 10.1.95. Heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, on the question of recalling order dated 10.1.1995. Vide order dated 10.1.95 the petition was not only dismissed in default, but also considering the merits of the case the said order was passed. Having heard Sri Dwivedi, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to recall the order dated 10.1.95. However, the facts as stated by Sri Dwivedi, the petitioner, if so advised, may approach to the authority concerned in view of the facts disclosed in the counter-affidavit. With the above observation, the application dated 9.2.95 is rejected.
(3.) From the aforesaid, it is clear that earlier the writ petition was dismissed on merits and while rejecting the recall application, liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority. It has further been pleaded in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that after disposal of writ petition No. 20301 of 1992, the petitioner approached the respondents several times for continuance of his job and gave several representations but no decision was taken and he was not allowed to work.;