- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) FOR the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by an affidavit, the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. The petitioner/appellant has preferred this Special Appeal against order of Single Bench dated 16th November, 2011, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9972/2009 filed by petitioner was disposed of with certain directions on the basis of limited prayer of petitioner and agreement of the respondents in that respect. It appears from the impugned order of Single Bench that arguments were advanced on behalf of petitioner that petitioner should have been appointed on regular basis instead of contractual basis, however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner confined his prayer to a limited one that petitioner would not be replaced by another set of contractual employee but he may be replaced as and when regularly selected candidate is available and further the issue of absorption would be considered if the petitioner is continued in service subject to any rule and instructions. Counsel for respondents agreed to the above prayers of the petitioner. The learned Single Bench, after considering submissions of parties, passed three directions. The relevant part of order of the Single Bench including directions are reproduced as under :- "I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has kept his prayer limited to what has already been given in the preceding paras and agreement of the respondents that petitioners would not be replaced by another set of contractual employees but they may be replaced as and when regularly selected candidates are available and further the issue of absorption would be considered if the petitioners are continued in service subject to any rule and instructions. In the background aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) the respondents have agreed that they will not replace the petitioners by another set of contractual employees, however, they would be permitted to replace the petitioners if regularly selected candidates are available with them. (ii) If petitioners are continued in service and complete sufficient length of service, attracting the provision for regularization/absorption, necessary consideration may be made accordingly. (iii) It is further directed that if respondents need persons on contract basis in future, those who have already been terminated, would be at liberty to submit an application for their re-employment and in that case, respondents are expected to consider the same and give preference to them. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. This disposes of the all the applications also." The above order of Single Bench shows that it is based on agreement of parties, therefore, no interference in the same is called for. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to make any legal submissions so as to interfere with the directions issued by the Single Bench, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find no merit in this Special Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. ;