- (1.) The appellant filed a writ petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution on 16 June 2008 seeking to challenge the selection process and the appointments made on the post of Training Assistant (Farm Manager) by the second respondent. The record before the Court indicates that the writ petition, which was filed in 2008, was heard from time to time and interim directions were issued by the learned Single Judge on 1 May 2013, 20 August 2013, 22 October 2013 and 25 October 2013. When the petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 14 August 2014, the following order was passed: "1. Called in revised. None appeared to press this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. 2. It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent. 3. However, I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 6. Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate, is present for respondents."
(2.) The appellant filed an application for restoration/recall2. The application has been rejected on 13 May 2015 by an order of the learned Single Judge which reads as follows: "This is an application seeking restoration of the case and setting aside the order dated 14.08.2014. Though, the order dated 14.08.2014 records that none had appeared on the said date to press this petition, however, the order also records some findings on the merit. Accordingly, this application for restoration or recall of the order is not maintainable which is hereby rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate course by way of filing a review petition, if he so desires."
(3.) The learned Single Judge has rejected the application for restoration/recall on 13 May 2015 on the ground that though on 14 August 2014, none had appeared to press the writ petition, the order recorded some findings on merits. Hence, the application for restoration or recall was held not to be maintainable.;