MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to interview the petitioner for appointment on the post of Class-IV prior to his retrenchment. Shri Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC 1992 (3), 533 and submitted that this Court in the said case directed the respondents to determine the vacancies and consider cases of all those, who were working on daily wages/ad hoc basis with them. It is submitted that petitioner submitted application along with others and many of his colleagues were considered for appointment and his case was ignored. The petitioner worked for more than 240 days. The writ petition may, therefore, be allowed. Respondents in reply to writ petition have submitted that petitioner worked for only 92 days and not for 240. He abandoned his service on his own in March, 1989 and writ petition has been filed in 1996 with delay of six years. It is also submitted that petitioner did not at all submit his application in response to notification issued by respondents. Such applications were invited as per direction issued in Ram Pratap's case. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering arguments aforesaid, I find that what is pleaded by petitioner about his period of working and on the fact that he submitted application before 15.9.1993 is seriously disputed by the respondents. Obviously, petitioner was not in service of respondents after March, 1989 and that he came to know about the cases of other employees, he has belatedly filed this writ petition. Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for issuance of mandamus as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;