- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 4th August, 2009 dismissed the writ petition with a finding that petitioner being the only beneficiary of the rejoining order in 1998 did not deserve the exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when fraud was writ large on the face of the records. As the relevant material facts on record reveal, petitioner's appointment as a Clerk in the year 1988 was terminated in 1993 on the ground that the appointing authority did not have the power to appoint and there were irregularities in the appointment. The challenge to the termination of his appointment by way of a writ petition C.W.J.C. No.4325 of 1994 did not meet with success. The learned Division Bench of Patna High Court also by a detailed order dated 20th December, 1996 passed in L.P.A. No.212 of 1995 did not find any merit in the appeal which stood dismissed. The matter, therefore attained finality so far as the issue of petitioner's appointment is concerned. The writ-petitioner thereafter rejoined service in the year 1998.
(3.) Though learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant has relied upon the letter no.952 dated 2nd December, 1998 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka calling him with relevant documents in relation to his reappointment but there are no appointment letter on record to support the claim of the petitioner that he had rejoined service in 1998 on the basis of a valid appointment order.;