Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition was taken up for final adjudication at this stage.
(2.) AGGRIEVED of the non -compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, to reinstate the petitioner in service and accord other benefits as directed therein; the petitioner has instituted these writ proceedings. Briefly, the indispensable essential material facts are: that the petitioner instituted writ proceedings registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 484 of 1985 (Saleem Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), assailing the order of the Principal, Superintendent of Police, Kota, dated 24th February, 1983, terminating his service for his alleged absence from duty for 19 days as informed by the Principal, Rajasthan Police Academy, vide order dated 15th February, 1983. This Court taking into consideration the facts and materials available on record, also examined the validity of the Standing Order Number 10/76, and concluded that the requirement of holding an enquiry, where the service of an employee is being terminated, on the specific allegation of misconduct, namely, absence during the course of training, cannot be dispensed with. In the result, the writ application of the petitioner was allowed quashing the order dated 24th February, 1983, impugned therein with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner and provide another opportunity of training afresh. In the event, the petitioner successfully completed the training, he would be entitled for confirmation in service along with all other consequential benefits but for actual salary for the period between 24th February, 1983 till the date of order i.e. 28th January, 1993.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, submitted that the petitioner could not gather the information about the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, since he was not in the town. He learned about the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, only when he saw other similarly situated candidates in service and on an enquiry from them, the fact of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, could be ascertained and therefore, represented to the respondents to reinstate him and accord all the benefits as ordered vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993. Having received no response, a notice for demand of justice was addressed through his Counsel. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents have reinstated identically situated candidates ignoring him and therefore, the action has been assailed as discriminatory. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner could not contact his counsel at the relevant time on account of some family problems and has finally instituted the writ proceedings for compliance of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993.;