- (1.) This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.11.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) The present appellant was the original petitioner who will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. The petitioner came with the case that he was a Commerce Graduate, was appointed as Revenue Inspector Vide order dated 24.9.1973 passed by the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Beawar on purely temporary basis for a period of six months or till the candidates selected by the Rajasthan Municipalities Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Commission are available whichever is earlier. He was allowed to continue in service even after the expiry of the six months and his term of appointment was extended upto 31.3.1976 by order dated 16.12.1975. By the office order dated 30.3.1976 wherein his name appear at Serial No. 1, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.3.1976 on the ground that he had not been selected by the Commission for the post of Revenue Inspector. This order dated 30.3.1976 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Beawar was earlier subjected to challenge in the writ petition No. 700/76. In that writ petition No. 700/76, the petitioner moved an amendment application after eight years while the petition was pending since 1976. Through this amendment application, the petitioner sought to incorporate new ground of challenge to his termination order dated 30.3.1976 based on violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition was decided by an order dated 6.2.1985 which is reproduced as under: "Certified copy of order dated 6.2.85 from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 700/96, Ram Ratan Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. Date of Order 6.2.85 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, for the petitioner. Mr. M.I. Khan, Advocate. In my opinion, the petitioner has applied for amendment of the petition after a delay of eight years. This could not be allowed. In the circumstances, therefore, I reject this application for amendment. Mr. Rastogi, however, contended that he will rather move a comprehensive petition and withdraw this petition. I allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty for him to move on the same cause of action, if it is not otherwise barred. The rule is discharged as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. P.K. Banerjee."
(3.) It is very clear from the reading of this order dated 6.2.1985 that the amendment was not allowed by the Court on the ground of delay of eight years in moving the amendment and the application seeking amendment was rejected and further in face of the rejection of the amendment application, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition and to file a comprehensive petition. The petition was accordingly allowed to be withdrawn with the liberty to move for the same cause of action if it is not otherwise barred and the rule was discharged. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The petition was filed on 25.2.1985.;