- (1.) LAWYERS are abstaining from work.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared in person and argued his case within a broader view of the factual position not happily worded in the writ petition and commenting in this regard on the role of learned counsel, who professionally are distancing from the spirit of service is futile. Suffice it to say that the professional duties, to an extent, strictly speaking are neither business nor trade and this may be one of the reasons why members of legal fraternity should be claiming special privileges.
(3.) NONE represented the respondents. This is a second writ petition filed by the petitioner in the sequel of litigation before this Court. Previously Writ Petition No.2637 (S/S) of 1991 was filed by the petitioner against the order of oral termination from service, wherein this Court on 30.4.1991 was pleased to pass the following order: - "Notice of this petition on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by Sri Rakesh Kumar who is allowed time till 7.5.1991 to file a counter affidavit. If the petitioner has completed 240 days of continuous service within the next preceding 12 months and if his work and conduct has been satisfactory, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service, the petitioner shall also be considered for being paid salary in the regular scale of pay.";