Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me on 11th February, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 20th September, 2001 and the order dated 22nd September, 2001 (Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition) respectively.
(3.) According to the report of the Stamp Reporter, the petition ought to have been filed normally up to 31st December, 2001 but the petition was presented on 5th February, 2003. On the question of explaining the laches, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a number of persons, who are affected by the impugned order, have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38480 of 2001 before this Court wherein this Court directed that the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 38480 of 2001 may file representation before the authority concerned and the authority concerned was directed to decide the same. Similarly another writ petition was filed i.e., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1608 of 2002 which has been decided by this Court on 11.1.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioners of the aforesaid two writ petitions filed their representation and by the order dated 7th November, 2002 on the respective representations, they have been retained in service as Angan Bari Karyakatri/ Assistant with the condition that they will be paid their emoluments only from the date of joining and after passing of the aforesaid order dated 7th November, 2002, the petitioner filed this writ petition that since other candidates, whose selection and appointment as Angan Bari Karyakatri/ Assistant has been decided along with the petitioner and as stated above, approached this Court by means of the aforesaid writ petition and as a consequence of the order passed by this Court, referred above, they have been reappointed in service, the impugned orders, Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner deserves to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be taken back in service.;