D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were wrongly terminated in the year, 1995 and, therefore, they must be reinstated and has relied upon several decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court at Patna and submitted that the termination order, passed by the respondents in the year, 1995, which are at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand, who has submitted mainly that there is a gross suppression of material facts by petitioner No. 1, since earlier the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003, instituted by petitioner No. 1, was already dismissed by this Court for the very same relief vide order dated 24 September, 2003 and, thus, there is no substance in the claim, made by petitioner No. 1, and the order, passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003 has never been challenged further in L.P.A. etc. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is gross unexplained delay on the part of petitioner No. 2 in preferring the present writ petition, as the termination order is of the year, 1995 whereas the present writ petition has been filed in the year, 2008. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that similarly situated petitioner No. 1's petition has been dismissed by this Court in the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003 vide order dated 24 September, 2003 and hence also, there is no substance in the claim, made by petitioner No. 2. It is lastly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were appointed illegally in the year, 1991 and, therefore, their services were brought to an end in the year, 1995 and thereafter, this termination order has been accepted for years together by petitioner No. 2, since petitioner No. 2 has not filed any writ petition on earlier occasion. Thus, the order of termination was accepted for approximately more than one decade and after thirteen long years, this writ petition has been preferred by petitioner No. 2 and on this ground also, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence the same deserved to be dismissed. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) petitioners are alleging that they were terminated wrongly in the year, 1995 and, therefore, they must be reinstated, but, looking to the order dated 24 September, 2003, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003, which was filed by present petitioner No. 1 for the very same relief and which was dismissed vide order 24 September, 2003, it appears that petitioner No. 1 has suppressed this material fact from this Court and this fact has been brought to the notice of this Court through the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4. Thus, there is no claim, so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, in this writ petition'. The earlier order, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003 has been accepted by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 has not challenged the said order in L.P.A. etc.; (ii) so far as the claim of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it appears that petitioner No. 2 was terminated in the year, 1995 and thereafter, for thirteen long years, this order of termination was accepted by petitioner No. 2, as no challenge was made during these years. There is no satisfactory explanation for delay in preferring this writ petition. The delay is gross and unexplained. Similarly situated petitioner No. 1's petition has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24 September, 2003 in W.P.(S) No. 4854 of 2003. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief to petitioner No. 2 also in exercise of the extra -ordinary jurisdiction, vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is, therefore, no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;