Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure P -4).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 17.5.1991. On 9.12.1992, Board of Directors of the petitioner decided to regularise the services of the Trainee Engineers. Service of respondent No. 2 was regularised w.e.f. 30.8.1994 against available vacancy. Respondent No. 2 moved a representation after he had resigned from the post that his services be regularised w.e.f. 16.11.1992. However, the said representation was rejected vide order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P -3). Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside, whereby in revision, respondent No. 1 had directed that services of respondent No. 2 be regularised w.e.f. 16.11.1992, the date he had completed the training period. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(3.) IN the present case, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) vide Annexure P -1 dated 15.4.1991. Service of respondent No. 2 was regularised w.e.f. 30.8.1994. Respondent No. 2, however, moved a representation that his service be regularised w.e.f. the date, he had completed the training period. Since, respondent No. 2 had already resigned from the post in question, the relief sought by respondent No. 2 had been rendered infructuous. In fact, respondent No. 2 had moved a representation after he had resigned from the post. In these circumstances, the representation moved by respondent No. 2 was rightly rejected vide order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P -3). Respondent No. 1 fell in error while allowing the revision petition filed by respondent no. 2 as respondent No. 2 had already resigned from the job when he had moved representation that his service be regularised w.e.f. 16.11.1992. Therefore, the representation moved by him after resigning from the job was liable to be rejected.;