- (1.) The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge an order dated 18 May 1993 passed by the Manager of the Harihar Mahadev Inter College, Deochandpur, Varanasi by which his services were terminated. The appellant also sought a mandamus restraining interference in the discharge of his duty as Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade. The petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 1 November 2010 and the following order was passed: "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. It is accordingly dismissed."
(2.) The appellant moved a recall application stating that he had no knowledge of the order dated 1 November 2010 since despite enquiry his previous counsel had not furnished a satisfactory response and that it was only ten days prior thereto when he was informed from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi that the petition had been dismissed on 1 November 2010. It may be also noted that the appellant stated that he was regularly working in the institution and had never furnished instructions to his earlier counsel to make the statement that the petition had been rendered infructuous by lapse of time. The relevant averments in that regard were as follows: "6. That aforesaid writ petition was not infructuous by efflux of time as stated by previous counsel of the petitioner but petitioner is regularly working in the aforesaid institution as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Sri Harihar Mahadeo Inter College, Deochandpur, Varanasi and petitioner was full hope for his regularization but on account of statement of previous counsel matter of regularization has been stopped and petitioner suffering from great loss. 7. That no any consent was taken by the previous counsel to the petitioner before giving the statement before this Hon'ble Court that writ petition has been became infructuous by efflux of time but on account of imagination aforesaid statement was given by the previous counsel which is not true."
(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the recall application on 16 October 2015 with the following order: "1. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 1.11.2010. 2. The aforesaid order was passed on the statement made by counsel for petitioner. Application for recall has been filed by a different counsel, who was not present on that date and has not made the statement. This application by a different counsel is not maintainable inasmuch the Court recollect that counsel, who appeared on behalf of petitioner on that day initially tried to argue the matter on merits, but finding some difficulty, he made statement for dismissal of writ petition as infructuous. I, therefore, find no reason to recall the said order. 3. The Restoration Application, along with delay condonation application, is hereby rejected.";